What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: El Paso, Texas
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BastOn
Only one rotor drive can pass through a rotating joint. Nacelle mounted engines along with an interconnect shaft provide dual drive paths to both rotors. All others would make the aircraft as survivable as a Chinook to a single hit. Germany in 82 showed that you do not have to be in combat for catastrophic failure in the Chinook, only a clogged oil port.
So the question may be why did the Chinook be allowed to live with a serious design flaw. A "simple" design change would be to have one engine driving the front rotor and one the after rotor and the top shaft behaving as a redundant path.
Tcabot113
Only one rotor drive can pass through a rotating joint. Nacelle mounted engines along with an interconnect shaft provide dual drive paths to both rotors. All others would make the aircraft as survivable as a Chinook to a single hit. Germany in 82 showed that you do not have to be in combat for catastrophic failure in the Chinook, only a clogged oil port.
So the question may be why did the Chinook be allowed to live with a serious design flaw. A "simple" design change would be to have one engine driving the front rotor and one the after rotor and the top shaft behaving as a redundant path.
Tcabot113
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Marines: Personnel not weapons to be cut
United Press International -
Thursday, December 08, 2011
Marines: Personnel not weapons to be cut
WASHINGTON, Dec 8, 2011 (UPI via COMTEX) -- The U.S. Marine Corps will cut costs by reducing troops rather than weapons programs, a military official said.
Assistant Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford said the Marines will meet debt-ceiling mandated budget cuts by reducing troops from 202,000 to 186,800, The Hill reported Thursday.
The Defense Department has been ordered to make $350 billion in cuts in a decade. Military officials have said they can make the cuts without hurting national security.
"In terms of procurement, we have protected that," Dunford told The Hill. That means plans for high-profile programs like the V-22 tiltrotor aircraft, a variant of the F-35 fighter and a new amphibious personnel craft remain on track, the newspaper said
Dunford, however, warned steeper budget cuts proposed by some lawmakers would require "difficult decisions" for the Marines.
United Press International -
Thursday, December 08, 2011
Marines: Personnel not weapons to be cut
WASHINGTON, Dec 8, 2011 (UPI via COMTEX) -- The U.S. Marine Corps will cut costs by reducing troops rather than weapons programs, a military official said.
Assistant Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford said the Marines will meet debt-ceiling mandated budget cuts by reducing troops from 202,000 to 186,800, The Hill reported Thursday.
The Defense Department has been ordered to make $350 billion in cuts in a decade. Military officials have said they can make the cuts without hurting national security.
"In terms of procurement, we have protected that," Dunford told The Hill. That means plans for high-profile programs like the V-22 tiltrotor aircraft, a variant of the F-35 fighter and a new amphibious personnel craft remain on track, the newspaper said
Dunford, however, warned steeper budget cuts proposed by some lawmakers would require "difficult decisions" for the Marines.
Tcabot....somehow I fear you do not understand the Chinook systems at all.
The wee fallacy with your idea is the overlap of the two rotor systems...something on the order of 11.5 feet as I recall. As long as the two rotors turn at the exact same RPM....having each head driven independently would work fine (assuming the "redundant path being the synch shaft between the two rotor heads were to fail).
As it is designed....the engines transfer their power to the rotor systems by means of a nose mounted engine gearbox....which connect to the combining gearbox...which then drives shafts to the forward and aft main gearboxes.
The Chinook has some critical components....more so than single rotor helicopters but then it is much more efficient than comparable single rotor helicopters due to its tandem rotor design.
The discussion is about the Osprey and tilt rotor designs....not the Chinook.
Try comparing the current Osprey design to that suggested with fixed engines and variable rotors if you will....that is what is under discussion.
The wee fallacy with your idea is the overlap of the two rotor systems...something on the order of 11.5 feet as I recall. As long as the two rotors turn at the exact same RPM....having each head driven independently would work fine (assuming the "redundant path being the synch shaft between the two rotor heads were to fail).
As it is designed....the engines transfer their power to the rotor systems by means of a nose mounted engine gearbox....which connect to the combining gearbox...which then drives shafts to the forward and aft main gearboxes.
The Chinook has some critical components....more so than single rotor helicopters but then it is much more efficient than comparable single rotor helicopters due to its tandem rotor design.
The discussion is about the Osprey and tilt rotor designs....not the Chinook.
Try comparing the current Osprey design to that suggested with fixed engines and variable rotors if you will....that is what is under discussion.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OOOHHH!
Differential on my car springs to mind - but then again perhaps I am missing a salient point. Help Sas!
I shall refine my original question tomorrow. Perhaps.
David - Ignoramus V22 wise.
Well after a good nights sleep I am ready for the fray!
With two engines driving into a coupling gearbox with one output shaft going to both Rotors/propellors so that they are linked in speed and drive, it does not seem to me to matter where the engines are within reason. I just feel that the complexity of tilting engines/oil/hydraulic systems et all is not an elegant solution.
I am of course assuming that the rotors are constant speed in flight and that all control is by some form of collective/cyclic pitch change. Loss of one engine will not matter and the drive will be coming from the remaining engine in the centre of the aircraft rather than across the whole shebang.
SAS - do I know what I am talking about?
Only one rotor drive can pass through a rotating joint.
I shall refine my original question tomorrow. Perhaps.
David - Ignoramus V22 wise.
Well after a good nights sleep I am ready for the fray!
With two engines driving into a coupling gearbox with one output shaft going to both Rotors/propellors so that they are linked in speed and drive, it does not seem to me to matter where the engines are within reason. I just feel that the complexity of tilting engines/oil/hydraulic systems et all is not an elegant solution.
I am of course assuming that the rotors are constant speed in flight and that all control is by some form of collective/cyclic pitch change. Loss of one engine will not matter and the drive will be coming from the remaining engine in the centre of the aircraft rather than across the whole shebang.
SAS - do I know what I am talking about?
Last edited by bast0n; 11th Dec 2011 at 09:20.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V-22 Being Replaced By A Helicopter
December 9, 2011: The U.S. Marine Corps recently admitted that the lifetime cost of operating their new V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft had increased 64 percent over the last three years (to $121.5 billion). Although the marines MV-22s have flown over 100,000 hours in Afghanistan and have an excellent safety and reliability record, they are very expensive. With major cuts in the defense budget coming, there is pressure to cease production of the MV-22, and put more money into cheaper helicopters. That is already happening.
Four years ago the U.S. Marine Corps began working on an updated version of their heavy, CH-53E, transport helicopters. The new version was the CH-53K. First flight of a CH-53K was to take place this year, with first CH-53Ks entering service in 2015. But now this has all been delayed. First flight won't take place until 2013, and the CH-53K won't enter service until 2018. Technical problems are blamed, although helicopter advocates imply that the marines don't want to take money away from their MV-22 program to keep the CH-53K program on schedule.
There is still a lot of enthusiasm for the CH-53K. Two years ago, the marines decided to replace their elderly CH-53Ds with CH-53Ks, rather than the more expensive MV-22s. The CH-53K was to cost about $27 million each, compared to about three times that for an MV-22. However, delaying the introduction of the CH-53K will cost over a billion dollars, and add about $5 million to the cost of each CH-53K. Replacing the CH-53Ds means more CH-53Ks, for a total of about 200. It's expected that the final costs of the CH-53D will be higher, but still about half the cost of an MV-22.
The Marine Corps currently operates a number of different helicopters and for years has been planning to shrink the number of types to save on operational and procurement costs. Medium and heavy lift helicopters such as the CH-46E (over 200 in use) and the CH-53 A/D (about 70) were originally to be replaced by 348 V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. But delays in that program, and a reduction in the number of V-22s to be built, led to the CH-53K. While the 38 ton CH-53K is a better cargo hauler, the 27 ton MV-22 moves twice as fast, and the marines have found that to be a major advantage in combat.
The CH-53E remains one of the few heavy lift helicopters that can operate in the high altitudes in Afghanistan, and they have been heavily used there. The CH-53Es average age is fifteen years, and over 3,000 flight hours. They require 44 man hours of maintenance, for each hour in the air. As a result, it costs about $20,000 for each flight hour. CH-53Es are good for about 6,000 flight hours, before metal fatigue makes them too dangerous to fly. The CH-53K will get cost per flight hour down to about $10,000 (about 30 percent less than the MV-22).
At the present rate of use, the Marines will begin running out of heavy-lift helicopters by 2012, thus the decision to put the CH-53 back into production as the CH-53K. The new model will be 15 percent heavier (at 38 tons) than the CH-53E and be able to carry nearly twice as much (13.5 tons). The CH-53K will be much easier to maintain, and cost about half as much, per flight hour, to operate.
While the MV-22 is a superior helicopter transport (greater speed and range) in a combat zone, it's also a lot more expensive. The coming budget cuts will probably seeing the marines cutting MV-22 purchases and falling back on conventional helicopters like the CH-53K to maintain their battlefield mobility. It's another case of good-enough beating out better.
Four years ago the U.S. Marine Corps began working on an updated version of their heavy, CH-53E, transport helicopters. The new version was the CH-53K. First flight of a CH-53K was to take place this year, with first CH-53Ks entering service in 2015. But now this has all been delayed. First flight won't take place until 2013, and the CH-53K won't enter service until 2018. Technical problems are blamed, although helicopter advocates imply that the marines don't want to take money away from their MV-22 program to keep the CH-53K program on schedule.
There is still a lot of enthusiasm for the CH-53K. Two years ago, the marines decided to replace their elderly CH-53Ds with CH-53Ks, rather than the more expensive MV-22s. The CH-53K was to cost about $27 million each, compared to about three times that for an MV-22. However, delaying the introduction of the CH-53K will cost over a billion dollars, and add about $5 million to the cost of each CH-53K. Replacing the CH-53Ds means more CH-53Ks, for a total of about 200. It's expected that the final costs of the CH-53D will be higher, but still about half the cost of an MV-22.
The Marine Corps currently operates a number of different helicopters and for years has been planning to shrink the number of types to save on operational and procurement costs. Medium and heavy lift helicopters such as the CH-46E (over 200 in use) and the CH-53 A/D (about 70) were originally to be replaced by 348 V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. But delays in that program, and a reduction in the number of V-22s to be built, led to the CH-53K. While the 38 ton CH-53K is a better cargo hauler, the 27 ton MV-22 moves twice as fast, and the marines have found that to be a major advantage in combat.
The CH-53E remains one of the few heavy lift helicopters that can operate in the high altitudes in Afghanistan, and they have been heavily used there. The CH-53Es average age is fifteen years, and over 3,000 flight hours. They require 44 man hours of maintenance, for each hour in the air. As a result, it costs about $20,000 for each flight hour. CH-53Es are good for about 6,000 flight hours, before metal fatigue makes them too dangerous to fly. The CH-53K will get cost per flight hour down to about $10,000 (about 30 percent less than the MV-22).
At the present rate of use, the Marines will begin running out of heavy-lift helicopters by 2012, thus the decision to put the CH-53 back into production as the CH-53K. The new model will be 15 percent heavier (at 38 tons) than the CH-53E and be able to carry nearly twice as much (13.5 tons). The CH-53K will be much easier to maintain, and cost about half as much, per flight hour, to operate.
While the MV-22 is a superior helicopter transport (greater speed and range) in a combat zone, it's also a lot more expensive. The coming budget cuts will probably seeing the marines cutting MV-22 purchases and falling back on conventional helicopters like the CH-53K to maintain their battlefield mobility. It's another case of good-enough beating out better.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clear the record of Marine pilots (V22)
December 11, 2011 5:17 AM
By now, many people would have given up the fight.
Not Connie Gruber and Trish Brow. Their husbands were killed on April 8, 2000, when the V-22 Osprey they were attempting to land in Marana, Ariz., crashed in a fiery explosion, killing all 19 Marines aboard.
The findings of the Marine Corps crash investigation later cast a shadow over the actions of pilot Lt. Col. John Brow and his co-pilot Maj. Brooks Gruber, and statements from high-level Marine officials at the time contributed to blame being cast at the Marine aviators.
Connie Gruber and Trish Brow have battled to remove the taint from their late husbands’ record. Enlisting the tireless assistance of Congressman Walter B. Jones, they have sought to have the Marine Corps’ official position clarified, once and for all, to state that the pilots were not at fault in the accident.
More than 11 years after the crash, their efforts continue. Through legislation in Congress and personal pleas to the Marine Corps commandant and the secretary of the Navy, Jones has pressed the case on the widows’ behalf. So far, they have failed to receive a satisfactory response.
As indicated earlier this year in an Oct. 5 letter to Jones, Marine Commandant Gen. James F. Amos stands by the “contemporaneous record” of the accident investigation. Amos has expressed his personal admiration for Brow and Gruber, blaming “outside observers” for mischaracterizing the pilot’s actions.
Much has been learned since the initial investigation, however, and Amos now should go a step further. He should give the Brow and Gruber families what they seek and what they deserve. He should issue a definitive statement that would put this question to rest once and for all.
The April 2000 crash occurred during a difficult and sometimes tragic period of the Osprey’s development. There were design flaws and many unknowns about how the innovative tilt-rotor aircraft would respond in certain situations. Those Marine aviators involved in the early flights were true pioneers who could not have known about some of the dangers they faced, including the conditions that caused the Marana crash, and therefore cannot and should not be held responsible.
“They introduced this aircraft and because of their life sacrifices, the Osprey of today is safe for the pilot, the crew and their passengers,” Connie Gruber, who lives in Jacksonville, told The Daily News in July 2009.
The Marine Corps can put an end to the legacy of mischaracterizations. It can clear the names of John Brow and Brooks Gruber for posterity — and for the peace of those who paid the highest price in the service of their nation. It should do so without further delay.
By now, many people would have given up the fight.
Not Connie Gruber and Trish Brow. Their husbands were killed on April 8, 2000, when the V-22 Osprey they were attempting to land in Marana, Ariz., crashed in a fiery explosion, killing all 19 Marines aboard.
The findings of the Marine Corps crash investigation later cast a shadow over the actions of pilot Lt. Col. John Brow and his co-pilot Maj. Brooks Gruber, and statements from high-level Marine officials at the time contributed to blame being cast at the Marine aviators.
Connie Gruber and Trish Brow have battled to remove the taint from their late husbands’ record. Enlisting the tireless assistance of Congressman Walter B. Jones, they have sought to have the Marine Corps’ official position clarified, once and for all, to state that the pilots were not at fault in the accident.
More than 11 years after the crash, their efforts continue. Through legislation in Congress and personal pleas to the Marine Corps commandant and the secretary of the Navy, Jones has pressed the case on the widows’ behalf. So far, they have failed to receive a satisfactory response.
As indicated earlier this year in an Oct. 5 letter to Jones, Marine Commandant Gen. James F. Amos stands by the “contemporaneous record” of the accident investigation. Amos has expressed his personal admiration for Brow and Gruber, blaming “outside observers” for mischaracterizing the pilot’s actions.
Much has been learned since the initial investigation, however, and Amos now should go a step further. He should give the Brow and Gruber families what they seek and what they deserve. He should issue a definitive statement that would put this question to rest once and for all.
The April 2000 crash occurred during a difficult and sometimes tragic period of the Osprey’s development. There were design flaws and many unknowns about how the innovative tilt-rotor aircraft would respond in certain situations. Those Marine aviators involved in the early flights were true pioneers who could not have known about some of the dangers they faced, including the conditions that caused the Marana crash, and therefore cannot and should not be held responsible.
“They introduced this aircraft and because of their life sacrifices, the Osprey of today is safe for the pilot, the crew and their passengers,” Connie Gruber, who lives in Jacksonville, told The Daily News in July 2009.
The Marine Corps can put an end to the legacy of mischaracterizations. It can clear the names of John Brow and Brooks Gruber for posterity — and for the peace of those who paid the highest price in the service of their nation. It should do so without further delay.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Marine Aircraft Plans in Peril as Tiltrotor Costs Soar
By David Axe
December 1, 2011
December 1, 2011
- The cost for the Marines to fix and fly their full fleet of V-22 tiltrotors has grown by nearly two-thirds over just four years, according to a Pentagon estimate. In 2008, the Defense Department calculated the “lifetime” cost of operating 360 V-22 Osprey transports at $75 billion over roughly 30 years. Today the figure is more than $121 billion — a 61-percent increase.
The rapidly escalating bill could could not come at a worse time for the Marines and Osprey-makers Bell and Boeing. The Marines are struggling to pay for an ambitious, carefully coordinated aviation modernization plan, elements of which have begun to unravel all at the same time. And that’s not even taking into account the looming prospect of deep defense cuts.
Bell and Boeing, meanwhile, are hoping to convince the Pentagon and foreign governments to order more V-22s, providing years of work at the companies’ factory in Amarillo, Texas.
The V-22, which takes off like a helicopter but cruises like an airplane thanks to its rotating engine nacelles, has been controversial since development began nearly 30 years ago. Several early models of the Osprey crashed during testing, killing 30 people. A redesigned version, though safer, still crashes or burns at a rate far higher than the Marines like to admit.
Leaving aside its safety record, the V-22 ain’t cheap. A single Osprey costs $60 million to purchase, plus millions more to support. For comparison, a Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter is actually slightly cheaper to buy. And the Army’s workhorse UH-60 Blackhawk chopper can be had for around $15 million apiece.
The price increase should come as no surprise to close observers of the Osprey’s tortured development. In order to make up for its small wings and rotors, which are sized to fit on Navy assault ships, designers fitted the V-22 with unusually powerful Rolls-Royce engines. They run hotter than normal airplane motors and break down faster. Engine problems have caused many of the V-22′s worst accidents and also account for much of the ballooning operational cost.
The Marines have tried different approaches to driving down the V-22′s maintenance bill. At one time the Corps even considered replacing the current engines with entirely new models. So far, nothing has worked. Four years after being declared combat-ready, the V-22 has readiness rate of just 69 percent, compared to 85 percent for a Blackhawk.
The Osprey’s growing pricetag could threaten other Marine programs. Despite their reputation for doing more with less, the Marines actually have the most ambitious aviation modernization plan of any of the military branches, according to Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group in Virginia.
The Marines want to buy F-35B stealth jump jets, modernized AH-1Z and UH-1Y light helicopters and the new heavyweight CH-53K chopper in addition to the V-22 — and all at the same time. Budgets are so tight that a cost increase with any of these new aircraft forces the Marines to cut back on others. Already, the Marines are considering eliminating H-1s to pay for F-35s. What would they sacrifice to afford more Ospreys?
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/osprey-costs-soar/
So what are we doing now, Dan? You posted this last piece of hit-garbage by David-Axe-to-grind the same day it was published back on december 2nd. Now you went back and deleted your old post to re-post the same article to keep it at the front of the thread? Why?
Oh and this is interesting...
So an article on "the strategy page" website with no sources and no listed author is being used in a cost/budgetargument, which flies in the face of the cost stated by the marine H53 program manager of $55 to $65 million each...and we all know your opinion of military program managers
...you cant trust them at all, can you!!
So, according to you, since Col Pridgen is a US military program manager he must be CLEARLY biased when hes claiming $55-65 million, what do you suppose the REAL costs are?
Oh and this is interesting...
The CH-53K was to cost about $27 million each, compared to about three times that for an MV-22. However, delaying the introduction of the CH-53K will cost over a billion dollars, and add about $5 million to the cost of each CH-53K.
Publicity on ANY government aircraft will ALWAYS find the users (government employees) and manufacturers saying what a fantastic machine it is (if they value their jobs and/or ever want to get promoted) which is why PPRuNe is such a valuable tool in trying to sort out the wheat from the chaff (BS from the facts).
Take the V-22 for example....
Take the V-22 for example....
So, according to you, since Col Pridgen is a US military program manager he must be CLEARLY biased when hes claiming $55-65 million, what do you suppose the REAL costs are?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan,
Repeatedly posting inaccurate information contained in articles being published that have already been shown to contain false statements will not make the false information become true. Read the previous posts and where you disagree, please provide evidence to counter.
On the article about the Marana crash, my heart goes out to the families and friends of the pilots and others on board that lost their lives that night (too many of us have gone through that loss without having to suffer the additional controversy). I think we can all agree with their advise that, “They introduced this aircraft and because of their life sacrifices, the Osprey of today is safe for the pilot, the crew and their passengers…”
thanks,
21stC
Repeatedly posting inaccurate information contained in articles being published that have already been shown to contain false statements will not make the false information become true. Read the previous posts and where you disagree, please provide evidence to counter.
On the article about the Marana crash, my heart goes out to the families and friends of the pilots and others on board that lost their lives that night (too many of us have gone through that loss without having to suffer the additional controversy). I think we can all agree with their advise that, “They introduced this aircraft and because of their life sacrifices, the Osprey of today is safe for the pilot, the crew and their passengers…”
thanks,
21stC
Last edited by 21stCen; 13th Dec 2011 at 15:35.
The Israeli Air Force : Unlike any other
Unlike any other
There isn’t another one like it in the world. The Bell-Boeing V-22 "Osprey" has been the source of much curiosity since it entered service in the U.S military and it still isn't clear if the tilt-rotor has more positives or negatives. Last month, two IAF pilots arrived at the U.S. to try the new aircraft themselves and try to answer these questions
It took weeks for the Marines staff to plan Operation "Cobra's Anger". Around 100 Marine solders and over 100 Afghan soldiers would land deep in the Taliban stronghold in the dead of night, ambush the terrorists and deactivate mines in the area.
In the beginning of December 2009, in the late night hours, the forces took off from a base in Southern Afghanistan toward Nawzad Valley in Helmand Province. Even though they were armed with optimal weaponry and military technology, the aircrafts carrying the soldiers were the ones that caught the eye. Tilt-rotors with broad underbellies, affixed wings and engines with changeable axes: V-22s.
Three decades earlier, immediately after the failure of Operation "Eagle Claw" (1980) to rescue American hostages in Tehran, the U.S. congress determined the need for a "new kind of plane that will be able to take off and land vertically and also carry forces in high speeds".
Thus began the development of the first tilt-rotor in the world. The prototype already took off in 1989 and ever since, the U.S. has been the only country in the world that supplied its forces with the aerial interbreed, which is manufactured through a cooperation of "Bell" and "Boeing" companies.
Not Either, Both
The V-22 is neither a plane nor a helicopter. "It is a new platform", Bell-Boeing claim. It is a new platform that can shift in configuration at the touch of a button and become a plane or, alternatively, a helicopter.
"The aircraft has the advantages of a helicopter. It can take off like one and has the ability to fly at slow speeds. Additionally, it combines its advantages with the stability, speed and ranges of a regular plane", says Bob Carrese, Boeing's Vice President of the V-22 Business Development. "While other manufacturers around the world are demonstrating technology, we already have it. We're demonstrating a tilt-rotor as a concept that changes the aeronautical world".
With a speed of 270 miles per hour and the ceiling height of a plane, there is no doubt that Bell-Boeing is introducing a new player to the field.
"There aren't other planes on the market that can function like a helicopter and reach the heights of a Hercules. These abilities give the aircraft an immense advantage in operations. It can function as a helicopter throughout the entire operation and yet between take off and reaching the destination, the plane can rise to tremendous altitudes and dodge threats and dangerous weather hazards throughout the flight".
The capabilities of the aircraft contribute, among others, to execute more rapid evacuations. "The plane reaches a point from which you can adjust the autopilot to search mode", says Carrese. "From that moment, the plane can maneuver in-air in the desired way and pilots are free to search for evacuees on ground".
Bell-Boeing doesn't forget to stress the system's durability. "Every system has two or three backups. Moreover, there is a far stronger chance that flight crew members and passengers were to survive had an accident to happen than on a regular helicopter".?
Checked It Off
Lieutenant Colonel Nimrod and Lieutenant Colonel Avi, both helicopter pilots in the IAF, arrived last month to a Marine Airbase in Carolina to test the unique tilt-rotor.
"The IAF determined that we need to test the plane and examine the possibility of purchasing it", said Lieutenant Colonel Nimrod, a pilot in the "Rolling Sword" squadron. "We spent four weeks in the United States. For the first two weeks, we studied the plane from morning to night and logged in 80 hours on the simulators. The final two weeks were spent flying the plane almost every day and examining every exercise with it".
In daylight, in pitch darkness, through dust landings and in extreme conditions, the Israeli pilots tried to test and understand the plane and determine how well it would suit the weather conditions in Israel. "We realized that the plane will absolutely change the name of the game. It will be able to carry out operations that we never imagined that one of our planes could execute. If we purchase the plane, our ranges of activity will dramatically change and we'll be able to reach points we've never even dreamed of", says Lieutenant Colonel Nimrod.
Bell-Boeing has even thought of possible uses for the plane in Israel of the next decade. "When we arrive at the day that we have oil wells out there in the Mediterranean, the plane will be able to carry out actions that no helicopter in the IAF will be able to. It can reach a point at sea, stay there for a long while and return", said a Boeing executive representative in Israel. "Countries in the order of magnitude of Israel don't have a plane with similar abilities to that of the V-22".
In spite of being trained helicopter pilots, Lieutenant Colonel Avi and Lieutenant Colonel Nimrod quickly adapted to the new platform. "Throughout the studying period we learned everything we could about the plane and broke records in regard to hours spent on the simulator", says Lieutenant Colonel Nimrod. "The plane's systems are very user-friendly and easy to operate, so we were able to get used to them quickly".
One of Bell-Boeing's main goals is to help the new tilt-rotor pilots to adapt rapidly to the planes. "The Fly-by-wire system installed on the plane reduces much of the load on the pilots' shoulders and allows them to focus more on completing the task than on flying the plane. The unique auto-pilot installed on the plane also assists to reach a point in a sky and quite literally, 'stand stilll'", says Carrese.
A Take-Off with a Glitch
The flying technique may be a gradually acquired skill, as Bell-Boeing claims. But Lieutenant Colonel Avi, a Sikorsky CH-53 helicopter pilot at the Flight Test Center, points out several rifts that might be more difficult to bridge.
"The plane is naturally energetic. The accelerations are literally breathtaking and the mid-stage in which the plane transitions from a vertical standpoint to a horizontal one is problematic as well", he explains.
Although Bell-Boeing insists that the acclimation to controlling the plane when transitioning from one standpoint to another is a matter of time and simple practice, the reality isn't always so.
"The pilot uses a control stick and a system that is similar to a throttle. In one standpoint, the control stick serves to determine altitude while the 'throttle' serves to determine speed. In the other standpoint, each of them serves the opposite role. In the mid-stage you feel like you're losing control of the plane. I imagined that the Fly-by-wire system would function more smoothly, but discovered that in some cases we needed to intervene".
In all other areas, Lieutenant Colonel Avi says that the system surpassed his expectations. "One of the biggest problems that helicopter pilots have when flying a plane with fixed wings is stalling", he explains. "On regular planes it's very easy to lose control while on the V-22 you need to try very hard to stall".
In some cases, the heat emanating from the plane's engines can burn the grass in the area of landing. "Sometimes issues arise and there are operations that the plane won't be able to carry out, such as landing on a roof, which could be dangerous because of the tilt-rotor's weight and force", says a Boeing executive.
Thus, the question is raised once again: To what extent does the IAF really needs the plane?
"We examined how the plane would alter operational activities we've carried out and will carry out in the future deep in enemy lines. While some of the operations would have changed completely with its help, there are some that would not have been altered at all. For example, in the situation in which we needed to bring back forces from Lebanon, I suspect that the plane had no real advantages", says Lieutenant Colonel Nimrod. "It's safe to assume that when evacuating injured people inside Israel, the plane would be a less efficient choice, but when rescuing from far away land, using the plane would make a significant difference".
Bell-Boeing adds that one of the platform's disadvantages is its price, which is higher than the average price of helicopters and planes on the market.
"The price of the tilt-rotor is still unknown and we hope we'll be able to determine it soon", says Carrese. The question of the necessity of the plane has even been raised in the U.S. congress. In the year 2000 the project was stalled by the House of Representatives, after 19 marines were tragically killed in a crash.
Bell-Boeing, on the other hand, claims that the plane's bad reputation is purely a result of narrow-minded competitors. "There is not another platform like this in the world. It's a lot safer than many other planes and helicopters", says the executive.
An Improvement or a Replacement?
Another advantage of the said tilt-rotor is its maintenance department. "The plane's maintenance is very similar to the maintenance of existing platforms, such as the Sikorsky CH-53", explains Carrese. "Because the plane is more sophisticated and intelligent, it requires a slightly different maintenance plan than 60-year-old helicopters. Anyhow, we estimate that its upkeep will be easier: after all, half of the plane is crafted out of compounded materials that rust and age more slowly than regular materials".
Additionally, flight crew members who will fly the plane won't notice a professional difference and will not need a separate flight course.
"Flying the plane is like flying a regular plane, but the tilt-rotor's missions are similar to those of a typical helicopter", said Lieutenant Colonel Nimrod. "It's safe to assume that most pilots flying it will be helicopter pilots".
The situation in the United States turns out to be similar. "Pilots here complete their course as helicopter pilots and then go through preparation to become V-22 pilots", says Carrese.
For now, it doesn't seem that the tilt-rotor will be replacing the trusty Sikorsky CH 53. "The size of the tilt-rotor's cargo area is two-thirds of the size of the Sikorsky's, but the cost per-hour-of-flight is quite similar in both cases. There are operations that we would rather carry out with the CH-53 and not with any other helicopter", says Lieutenant Colonel Avi. "We need to remember one thing: The tilt-rotor is a platform in itself. At the end of the day, it will have tasks of its own and will need to integrate with the existing aircrafts in the Force without replacing any of them".
There isn’t another one like it in the world. The Bell-Boeing V-22 "Osprey" has been the source of much curiosity since it entered service in the U.S military and it still isn't clear if the tilt-rotor has more positives or negatives. Last month, two IAF pilots arrived at the U.S. to try the new aircraft themselves and try to answer these questions
It took weeks for the Marines staff to plan Operation "Cobra's Anger". Around 100 Marine solders and over 100 Afghan soldiers would land deep in the Taliban stronghold in the dead of night, ambush the terrorists and deactivate mines in the area.
In the beginning of December 2009, in the late night hours, the forces took off from a base in Southern Afghanistan toward Nawzad Valley in Helmand Province. Even though they were armed with optimal weaponry and military technology, the aircrafts carrying the soldiers were the ones that caught the eye. Tilt-rotors with broad underbellies, affixed wings and engines with changeable axes: V-22s.
Three decades earlier, immediately after the failure of Operation "Eagle Claw" (1980) to rescue American hostages in Tehran, the U.S. congress determined the need for a "new kind of plane that will be able to take off and land vertically and also carry forces in high speeds".
Thus began the development of the first tilt-rotor in the world. The prototype already took off in 1989 and ever since, the U.S. has been the only country in the world that supplied its forces with the aerial interbreed, which is manufactured through a cooperation of "Bell" and "Boeing" companies.
Not Either, Both
The V-22 is neither a plane nor a helicopter. "It is a new platform", Bell-Boeing claim. It is a new platform that can shift in configuration at the touch of a button and become a plane or, alternatively, a helicopter.
"The aircraft has the advantages of a helicopter. It can take off like one and has the ability to fly at slow speeds. Additionally, it combines its advantages with the stability, speed and ranges of a regular plane", says Bob Carrese, Boeing's Vice President of the V-22 Business Development. "While other manufacturers around the world are demonstrating technology, we already have it. We're demonstrating a tilt-rotor as a concept that changes the aeronautical world".
With a speed of 270 miles per hour and the ceiling height of a plane, there is no doubt that Bell-Boeing is introducing a new player to the field.
"There aren't other planes on the market that can function like a helicopter and reach the heights of a Hercules. These abilities give the aircraft an immense advantage in operations. It can function as a helicopter throughout the entire operation and yet between take off and reaching the destination, the plane can rise to tremendous altitudes and dodge threats and dangerous weather hazards throughout the flight".
The capabilities of the aircraft contribute, among others, to execute more rapid evacuations. "The plane reaches a point from which you can adjust the autopilot to search mode", says Carrese. "From that moment, the plane can maneuver in-air in the desired way and pilots are free to search for evacuees on ground".
Bell-Boeing doesn't forget to stress the system's durability. "Every system has two or three backups. Moreover, there is a far stronger chance that flight crew members and passengers were to survive had an accident to happen than on a regular helicopter".?
Checked It Off
Lieutenant Colonel Nimrod and Lieutenant Colonel Avi, both helicopter pilots in the IAF, arrived last month to a Marine Airbase in Carolina to test the unique tilt-rotor.
"The IAF determined that we need to test the plane and examine the possibility of purchasing it", said Lieutenant Colonel Nimrod, a pilot in the "Rolling Sword" squadron. "We spent four weeks in the United States. For the first two weeks, we studied the plane from morning to night and logged in 80 hours on the simulators. The final two weeks were spent flying the plane almost every day and examining every exercise with it".
In daylight, in pitch darkness, through dust landings and in extreme conditions, the Israeli pilots tried to test and understand the plane and determine how well it would suit the weather conditions in Israel. "We realized that the plane will absolutely change the name of the game. It will be able to carry out operations that we never imagined that one of our planes could execute. If we purchase the plane, our ranges of activity will dramatically change and we'll be able to reach points we've never even dreamed of", says Lieutenant Colonel Nimrod.
Bell-Boeing has even thought of possible uses for the plane in Israel of the next decade. "When we arrive at the day that we have oil wells out there in the Mediterranean, the plane will be able to carry out actions that no helicopter in the IAF will be able to. It can reach a point at sea, stay there for a long while and return", said a Boeing executive representative in Israel. "Countries in the order of magnitude of Israel don't have a plane with similar abilities to that of the V-22".
In spite of being trained helicopter pilots, Lieutenant Colonel Avi and Lieutenant Colonel Nimrod quickly adapted to the new platform. "Throughout the studying period we learned everything we could about the plane and broke records in regard to hours spent on the simulator", says Lieutenant Colonel Nimrod. "The plane's systems are very user-friendly and easy to operate, so we were able to get used to them quickly".
One of Bell-Boeing's main goals is to help the new tilt-rotor pilots to adapt rapidly to the planes. "The Fly-by-wire system installed on the plane reduces much of the load on the pilots' shoulders and allows them to focus more on completing the task than on flying the plane. The unique auto-pilot installed on the plane also assists to reach a point in a sky and quite literally, 'stand stilll'", says Carrese.
A Take-Off with a Glitch
The flying technique may be a gradually acquired skill, as Bell-Boeing claims. But Lieutenant Colonel Avi, a Sikorsky CH-53 helicopter pilot at the Flight Test Center, points out several rifts that might be more difficult to bridge.
"The plane is naturally energetic. The accelerations are literally breathtaking and the mid-stage in which the plane transitions from a vertical standpoint to a horizontal one is problematic as well", he explains.
Although Bell-Boeing insists that the acclimation to controlling the plane when transitioning from one standpoint to another is a matter of time and simple practice, the reality isn't always so.
"The pilot uses a control stick and a system that is similar to a throttle. In one standpoint, the control stick serves to determine altitude while the 'throttle' serves to determine speed. In the other standpoint, each of them serves the opposite role. In the mid-stage you feel like you're losing control of the plane. I imagined that the Fly-by-wire system would function more smoothly, but discovered that in some cases we needed to intervene".
In all other areas, Lieutenant Colonel Avi says that the system surpassed his expectations. "One of the biggest problems that helicopter pilots have when flying a plane with fixed wings is stalling", he explains. "On regular planes it's very easy to lose control while on the V-22 you need to try very hard to stall".
In some cases, the heat emanating from the plane's engines can burn the grass in the area of landing. "Sometimes issues arise and there are operations that the plane won't be able to carry out, such as landing on a roof, which could be dangerous because of the tilt-rotor's weight and force", says a Boeing executive.
Thus, the question is raised once again: To what extent does the IAF really needs the plane?
"We examined how the plane would alter operational activities we've carried out and will carry out in the future deep in enemy lines. While some of the operations would have changed completely with its help, there are some that would not have been altered at all. For example, in the situation in which we needed to bring back forces from Lebanon, I suspect that the plane had no real advantages", says Lieutenant Colonel Nimrod. "It's safe to assume that when evacuating injured people inside Israel, the plane would be a less efficient choice, but when rescuing from far away land, using the plane would make a significant difference".
Bell-Boeing adds that one of the platform's disadvantages is its price, which is higher than the average price of helicopters and planes on the market.
"The price of the tilt-rotor is still unknown and we hope we'll be able to determine it soon", says Carrese. The question of the necessity of the plane has even been raised in the U.S. congress. In the year 2000 the project was stalled by the House of Representatives, after 19 marines were tragically killed in a crash.
Bell-Boeing, on the other hand, claims that the plane's bad reputation is purely a result of narrow-minded competitors. "There is not another platform like this in the world. It's a lot safer than many other planes and helicopters", says the executive.
An Improvement or a Replacement?
Another advantage of the said tilt-rotor is its maintenance department. "The plane's maintenance is very similar to the maintenance of existing platforms, such as the Sikorsky CH-53", explains Carrese. "Because the plane is more sophisticated and intelligent, it requires a slightly different maintenance plan than 60-year-old helicopters. Anyhow, we estimate that its upkeep will be easier: after all, half of the plane is crafted out of compounded materials that rust and age more slowly than regular materials".
Additionally, flight crew members who will fly the plane won't notice a professional difference and will not need a separate flight course.
"Flying the plane is like flying a regular plane, but the tilt-rotor's missions are similar to those of a typical helicopter", said Lieutenant Colonel Nimrod. "It's safe to assume that most pilots flying it will be helicopter pilots".
The situation in the United States turns out to be similar. "Pilots here complete their course as helicopter pilots and then go through preparation to become V-22 pilots", says Carrese.
For now, it doesn't seem that the tilt-rotor will be replacing the trusty Sikorsky CH 53. "The size of the tilt-rotor's cargo area is two-thirds of the size of the Sikorsky's, but the cost per-hour-of-flight is quite similar in both cases. There are operations that we would rather carry out with the CH-53 and not with any other helicopter", says Lieutenant Colonel Avi. "We need to remember one thing: The tilt-rotor is a platform in itself. At the end of the day, it will have tasks of its own and will need to integrate with the existing aircrafts in the Force without replacing any of them".
So....the Israeli's give an honest appraisal....the Osprey has its merits and its warts....does some things very well...some things not so well...and should not be used for some other things.
Now...let's see how much money they ante up..as that is the absolute final vote of confidence.
Now...let's see how much money they ante up..as that is the absolute final vote of confidence.
To me, the article and the assessment states the obvious: Israel wont be replacing any of its fleet with V22s......because it does not operate any medium lift helicopters.
I honestly don't understand the constant contrasting of the V22 and CH53X (and I mean "X" as a variable, not as the previous designation of the K). They are completely different machines, and the V22 was never intended or designed to perform the 53 series missions. Its a Ford F150 versus a CAT 770 dump truck.
I honestly don't understand the constant contrasting of the V22 and CH53X (and I mean "X" as a variable, not as the previous designation of the K). They are completely different machines, and the V22 was never intended or designed to perform the 53 series missions. Its a Ford F150 versus a CAT 770 dump truck.
Regardless of what the operators say, the price per unit will doubtless be a factor. I appreciate the comments of actual operators, but my own experience with hardware, budget approval, and recommendations (which do not all get funded) tells me that "Want to have" by any operating forces does not equal "We'll buy it for you" from budget authority. (Were that not the case, Comanche might still be flying today ... )
This raises the question: Is the US taxpayer going to get soaked to fund the IAF Osprey buy?
If so, why?
There may be good reasons, but I'd like to hear them, and consider those myself.
This raises the question: Is the US taxpayer going to get soaked to fund the IAF Osprey buy?
If so, why?
There may be good reasons, but I'd like to hear them, and consider those myself.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the V22 was never intended or designed to perform the 53 series missions
V-22 Osprey
Description: The V-22 Osprey is a multi-engine, dual-piloted, self-deployable, medium lift, vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) tilt-rotor aircraft designed for combat, combat support, combat service support, and Special Operations missions worldwide. It will replace the Corps' aged fleet of CH-46E and CH-53D medium lift helicopters.
Description: The V-22 Osprey is a multi-engine, dual-piloted, self-deployable, medium lift, vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) tilt-rotor aircraft designed for combat, combat support, combat service support, and Special Operations missions worldwide. It will replace the Corps' aged fleet of CH-46E and CH-53D medium lift helicopters.
the V22 was never intended or designed to perform the 53 series missions.
Must we go back over plowed ground on this one?
Sans....if you doubt us....take a few minutes and go back through the thread and you shall (that is the imperative tense) see this is very much the truth.
Granted the situation gets a bit muddled as the USMC has called back mothballed D Model airframes from AMARC and pulled them from the Reserves and other units (HMX-1) even to meet operational requirements.
But that was long after the sales pitch to Congress and the rest of the Guvmint on why they needed the numbers of 22's they were asking for.
I guess I should clarify my opinion (yes my opinion, nothing more).
Yes, the V22 was intended to replace the USMC CH53D/CH46 mission.
However,
The 53 is classified by the manufacturer and all users (outside the USMC) as a heavy lift helicopter, even the 53D. Now I would argue that the 53D is a heavy lift airframe used for a "medium lift" role in conjunction with the CH46 for the USMC, seeing as how the former has approximately double the MGW of the latter. (Was the 53D "medium lift" in the Marines' books prior to the introduction of the CH53E?)
The simple fact that the USMC was using the CH53D as a medium lift asset does not make it something inherently "medium lift" for everyone, which is why I would not expect Israel to replace their 53s with V22, as they are using them as intended/designed workhorse heavy lift assets, with missions catering to that performance no doubt.
Yes, the V22 was intended to replace the USMC CH53D/CH46 mission.
However,
The 53 is classified by the manufacturer and all users (outside the USMC) as a heavy lift helicopter, even the 53D. Now I would argue that the 53D is a heavy lift airframe used for a "medium lift" role in conjunction with the CH46 for the USMC, seeing as how the former has approximately double the MGW of the latter. (Was the 53D "medium lift" in the Marines' books prior to the introduction of the CH53E?)
The simple fact that the USMC was using the CH53D as a medium lift asset does not make it something inherently "medium lift" for everyone, which is why I would not expect Israel to replace their 53s with V22, as they are using them as intended/designed workhorse heavy lift assets, with missions catering to that performance no doubt.
Sans,
With the advent of the E and now K model 53....the USMC demoted the "D" from the "Heavy Lift" category. That decision relegated the D to Medium lift status as a direct result.
That is why they sold the 22 as being a replacement for the 46 and 53D.
Their end game was to justify greater numbers of the 22 by doing so.
Now they are using the Airframe Life data on the E's to justify more K's.
Nothing wrong with any of that except once the dice are rolled....you have to read the dots as they appear on the table.
Where the knife cut both ways was when they started bringing back D models despite fielding substantial numbers of 22's (in my opinon) which told me things were not going as they had hoped. Otherwise those D models would have stayed at AMARC and the other places they were.
Now that Iraq is "over", operational demands are limited to Afghanistan, in addition to the normal deployments of Afloats and training missions....should we not begin to see the D's and 46's being taken out of the force structure?
Especially since we are seeing the looming money cuts coming! Granted the Commandant announced there would only be Manpower cuts rather than "gear" cuts but still the 22 is to "replace" the 46's for sure...and the 53D's....the measure of success for the 22 program will be the progress in replacing the legacy airframes .
Is anyone tracking the promise versus accomplishment on that?
With the advent of the E and now K model 53....the USMC demoted the "D" from the "Heavy Lift" category. That decision relegated the D to Medium lift status as a direct result.
That is why they sold the 22 as being a replacement for the 46 and 53D.
Their end game was to justify greater numbers of the 22 by doing so.
Now they are using the Airframe Life data on the E's to justify more K's.
Nothing wrong with any of that except once the dice are rolled....you have to read the dots as they appear on the table.
Where the knife cut both ways was when they started bringing back D models despite fielding substantial numbers of 22's (in my opinon) which told me things were not going as they had hoped. Otherwise those D models would have stayed at AMARC and the other places they were.
Now that Iraq is "over", operational demands are limited to Afghanistan, in addition to the normal deployments of Afloats and training missions....should we not begin to see the D's and 46's being taken out of the force structure?
Especially since we are seeing the looming money cuts coming! Granted the Commandant announced there would only be Manpower cuts rather than "gear" cuts but still the 22 is to "replace" the 46's for sure...and the 53D's....the measure of success for the 22 program will be the progress in replacing the legacy airframes .
Is anyone tracking the promise versus accomplishment on that?
V-22 Medium Lift
The following paper, written over ten years ago sheds light on the USMC thinking. Its a Masters Degree Thesis re the 53E, but addresses the V-22 vs 53E roles and missions concepts:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...92&Location=U2...
One Approver, Col Paul Crosetiere, was the 53 Class Desk Officer around that time and one very, very intelligent Marine Aviator.
It also might help readers to know that the USMC had underwritten a CH-53D 50,000 lb flight test qualification program in the late 70's ( which was later used by the IAF, but not the USMC ), so the USMC is/was well aware that the V-22 could do some but not by any means all, of the 53D missions.
Someone will inevitably raise the question of whether moving artillery is a USMC medium lift mission, but it appears that they have decided ( ? ) to make it exclusively a heavy lift mission.
Thanks,
John Dixson
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...92&Location=U2...
One Approver, Col Paul Crosetiere, was the 53 Class Desk Officer around that time and one very, very intelligent Marine Aviator.
It also might help readers to know that the USMC had underwritten a CH-53D 50,000 lb flight test qualification program in the late 70's ( which was later used by the IAF, but not the USMC ), so the USMC is/was well aware that the V-22 could do some but not by any means all, of the 53D missions.
Someone will inevitably raise the question of whether moving artillery is a USMC medium lift mission, but it appears that they have decided ( ? ) to make it exclusively a heavy lift mission.
Thanks,
John Dixson
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: here
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the USMC demoted the "D" from the "Heavy Lift" category
As far as the -22 replacing the Ds from what I've heard the Ds are averaging (8) pax in Afghanistan and the 46Es (4), the -22 (15-16) (but that's just word of mouth from Marine aviators) so I would call that mission accomplished for the 22. Keep in mind that the H-1Y is capable of carrying 8 pax in that environment so one could say that the new Huey can perform the mission of both the 53D and 46E, does that make it a medium lift assest or is it still light attack/utility?