What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any wonder why?
This article might be a good starting point.
Saving the Pentagon's Killer Chopper-Plane
The final sentence sums it up!
This article might be a good starting point.
Saving the Pentagon's Killer Chopper-Plane
The final sentence sums it up!
Mike Lieberman, a military affairs aide on the House Armed Services Committee, has a more pragmatic view: "My God, we've thrown so much money at it, we have to get something out of it."
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: tx
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack,
In order to establish a baseline for design does one not need to consider the customer requirements? The aircraft the Marines wanted had to be able to take off and land vertically, operate from a ship, have an internal payload larger than the CH-46E (not the 53), a mission radius of over 200 nm, airspeed of 275 kts, etc. What helicopter or fixed aircraft fulfills all those requirements? None. Therefore any comparison of the V-22 to a fixed wing is useless since the fixed wing aircraft can only do the enroute portion of the mission. If nothing meets the requirements then you either need a new design baseline or the customer needs to change their requirement (which is really what the V-22 argument comes down to). From my point of view, and it’s strictly mine, you are using engineering data to make an argument against the operational effectiveness of the aircraft. What your baseline does not consider is the flexibility the V-22 adds to the operational capabilities of the MEU commander. The ability to “reduce the ops area in half” which also implies that the enemy has twice the operational area to defend, the reduction by ½ of the time required for reinforcements, beans, bullets and band aids to arrive in zone during combat operations, the elimination of FARP requirements for what would be a long range mission for helicopters (FARP security which reduces your combat forces available for the assault and for reinforcement, do you use 53’s to refuel which reduces the MEU commanders 53 assets available by ½, or do you take over an airfield for the C-130’s which requires it’s own assault force to secure the airfield (a further reduction in forces available for the assault), plus just the general risk and exposure of FARP operations), the more than doubling of Marines it can carry compared to the aircraft it’s replacing. The sole purpose of Marine aviation is to support the grunts, and they want their support now, not later. Given that, in order to meet the airspeed, combat radius, shipboard operations, vertical takeoff and landing and pax requirements established by the USMC, what aircraft other than the V-22 meets or exceeds those requirements?
In order to establish a baseline for design does one not need to consider the customer requirements? The aircraft the Marines wanted had to be able to take off and land vertically, operate from a ship, have an internal payload larger than the CH-46E (not the 53), a mission radius of over 200 nm, airspeed of 275 kts, etc. What helicopter or fixed aircraft fulfills all those requirements? None. Therefore any comparison of the V-22 to a fixed wing is useless since the fixed wing aircraft can only do the enroute portion of the mission. If nothing meets the requirements then you either need a new design baseline or the customer needs to change their requirement (which is really what the V-22 argument comes down to). From my point of view, and it’s strictly mine, you are using engineering data to make an argument against the operational effectiveness of the aircraft. What your baseline does not consider is the flexibility the V-22 adds to the operational capabilities of the MEU commander. The ability to “reduce the ops area in half” which also implies that the enemy has twice the operational area to defend, the reduction by ½ of the time required for reinforcements, beans, bullets and band aids to arrive in zone during combat operations, the elimination of FARP requirements for what would be a long range mission for helicopters (FARP security which reduces your combat forces available for the assault and for reinforcement, do you use 53’s to refuel which reduces the MEU commanders 53 assets available by ½, or do you take over an airfield for the C-130’s which requires it’s own assault force to secure the airfield (a further reduction in forces available for the assault), plus just the general risk and exposure of FARP operations), the more than doubling of Marines it can carry compared to the aircraft it’s replacing. The sole purpose of Marine aviation is to support the grunts, and they want their support now, not later. Given that, in order to meet the airspeed, combat radius, shipboard operations, vertical takeoff and landing and pax requirements established by the USMC, what aircraft other than the V-22 meets or exceeds those requirements?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
380 hours for an engine on the wing. Dust causing problems with the wiring. Nacelle center bodies being replaced at $100k each. Great.
null
USMC helo, how many V22 airframes are parked in hangars after having been damaged beyond repair, and without the required Class A mishap reports?
null
USMC helo, how many V22 airframes are parked in hangars after having been damaged beyond repair, and without the required Class A mishap reports?
V-22 in Afghanistan
Question for USMC helo:
Assume Hp = 7000 ft and OAT = +28C ( Hd = 10000 ft )
With a combat equipped and crewed V-22, full normal tanks, normal ammo load for defensive guns ( assume the new 7.62 mm gatling gun with remote gunner ),
What is the HOGE payload capability under the conditions as stated?
Thanks,
John Dixson
Assume Hp = 7000 ft and OAT = +28C ( Hd = 10000 ft )
With a combat equipped and crewed V-22, full normal tanks, normal ammo load for defensive guns ( assume the new 7.62 mm gatling gun with remote gunner ),
What is the HOGE payload capability under the conditions as stated?
Thanks,
John Dixson
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by OFBSLF
USMC helo, how many V22 airframes are parked in hangars after having been damaged beyond repair, and without the required Class A mishap reports?
Anyone know about the Osprey “Hall of Shame” located at the Boeing facility in Pennsylvania were dozens of unrepairable V-22s are stashed. I’ve been told there are several damaged V-22s in a hangar at New River NC that were cannibalized for parts. I’ve been told there are several that were sent back to Amarillo for conversion to “Block Bs”, but their airframes had damage that couldn’t be repaired. Congress has funded 150 V-22s through FY2009, so around 140 have been delivered. The Corps claims only 84 are in service, and won’t account for the rest. Meanwhile, there are none in Iraq or Afghanistan. From what I understand, after two years of service they have so many problems with leaky hydraulic lines and cracks in wings or the floor that they are quietly retired.
The editor at defense-aerospace.com had some interesting comments on yesterday's V-22 reports:
EDITOR’S NOTE: Defending the MV-22’s performance, Lt. Gen. George J. Trautman, the Marine Corps’ Deputy Commandant for Aviation, noted that “the three VMM squadrons that have deployed to Iraq have flown over 9800 hours while executing more than 6000 sorties, carrying over 45,000 passengers and lifting 2.2 million pounds of cargo.”
Yet, on average, these figures work out to a distinctly unimpressive 7.5 passengers and 366 lbs load per sortie, which doesn’t do much to bolster the Osprey’s operational credibility.
And, as noted by committee chairman Edolphus Towns, only 47 of the 105 Ospreys that the Marine Corps has bought since 1988 are considered “combat deployable,” and only 22 of these 47 were ready for combat on a given day.
Giovanni also points out that, despite their age, Phrogs in Iraq have averaged MC rates of 85% or greater.
I/C
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The V-22 Osprey program is the largest scandal in the U.S. military."
http://springboarder.*************/2...-congress.html
http://springboarder.*************/2...-congress.html
usmc helo, let's not be naive. Bell has been working on the tilt-rotor concept since the 1950's with limited success. I would imagine that Bell went to the Pentagon in 1980 or so and said, "Look, we're dead in the water with this XV-15 unless we can get a military customer. We need to grow it, we know that, but we need more funding. Suppose we say that we can give you a vertical take-off aircraft that can operate from a ship, have an internal payload greater than the H-46, have a mission radius of 200 miles or so, and cruise at, oh, let's say 275 knots. Let's see Sikorsky match that!"
Pentagon brass probably asked, "Can you really do that?"
And Bell executives all looked at each other nervously and said, "Uhhhhh yeah! Sure! You betcha! You know... if it works out and we make some big advances in computer technology and hydraulic systems in the very near future. But yeah, uhhhh, definitely!"
Then the DoD came out with their JVX program in 1981 and the requirements were, coincidentally, exactly the same as what Bell proposed.
Or do you think the DoD pulled those requirements out of thin air?
If the JVX came out of the failure of Operation Eagle Claw, then the requirements are a little strange.
Pentagon brass probably asked, "Can you really do that?"
And Bell executives all looked at each other nervously and said, "Uhhhhh yeah! Sure! You betcha! You know... if it works out and we make some big advances in computer technology and hydraulic systems in the very near future. But yeah, uhhhh, definitely!"
Then the DoD came out with their JVX program in 1981 and the requirements were, coincidentally, exactly the same as what Bell proposed.
Or do you think the DoD pulled those requirements out of thin air?
If the JVX came out of the failure of Operation Eagle Claw, then the requirements are a little strange.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SW Asia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some Common Sense Here, Gemtlemen?
As I understand the points being made, the V-22 ended its Iraq tour with a final MC rate of 62% (the first several months were reported at 68% as I recall). I also remember that the USMC kept the same airframes in Iraq and rotated squadrons to keep the pressure up to test the airframes and logistics.
OK, so we see 62% Mission capable and now some ppruners are ready to toss in the towel.
Can I suggest you read the MC rates for all the military equipment, including ground vehicles? Here is the source:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06141.pdf
Here are a few plots from that document:
Considering that the 62% was the end of the Osprey's first active duty deployment, and it tends to match several years worth of experience for several major, mature combat aircraft, I think things aren't so bleak.
Of course, I don't have an ax to grind, and I do have data. That makes me ill equipped for this thread.
OK, so we see 62% Mission capable and now some ppruners are ready to toss in the towel.
Can I suggest you read the MC rates for all the military equipment, including ground vehicles? Here is the source:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06141.pdf
Here are a few plots from that document:
Considering that the 62% was the end of the Osprey's first active duty deployment, and it tends to match several years worth of experience for several major, mature combat aircraft, I think things aren't so bleak.
Of course, I don't have an ax to grind, and I do have data. That makes me ill equipped for this thread.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: tx
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JohnDixson,
Since I'm not a V-22 pilot and don't have access to a NATOPS manual I can't answer that. However, as I've stated before I to have concerns about the aircrafts performance in Afghanistan. The Marine corps wanted and got a sea level machine. However, I'm willing to listen to the Marines and if they think it will be operationally beneficial than who am I, or for that matter anyone else on here to say otherwise?
FH1100,
Do you have any proof of that? Have you found the gunman on the grassy knoll yet?
OFBSLF,
Since I haven't been to New River in a few years I don't know. How many did you count and which hangar did you go to?
I made a statement about (what I feel) are the operational advantages of the V-22 compared to how the Marines do business today. It appears from the comments (with the exception of JohnDixson) made that no one here is capable of countering it so intstead we get more useless and unconfirmed dribble.
By the way...Apparently the 53D engines were only getting 200 hours on wing in Iraq. That came from the 53 PMA office.
Since I'm not a V-22 pilot and don't have access to a NATOPS manual I can't answer that. However, as I've stated before I to have concerns about the aircrafts performance in Afghanistan. The Marine corps wanted and got a sea level machine. However, I'm willing to listen to the Marines and if they think it will be operationally beneficial than who am I, or for that matter anyone else on here to say otherwise?
FH1100,
Do you have any proof of that? Have you found the gunman on the grassy knoll yet?
OFBSLF,
Since I haven't been to New River in a few years I don't know. How many did you count and which hangar did you go to?
I made a statement about (what I feel) are the operational advantages of the V-22 compared to how the Marines do business today. It appears from the comments (with the exception of JohnDixson) made that no one here is capable of countering it so intstead we get more useless and unconfirmed dribble.
By the way...Apparently the 53D engines were only getting 200 hours on wing in Iraq. That came from the 53 PMA office.
Last edited by usmc helo; 26th Jun 2009 at 20:42.
V-22 in Afghanistan
USMC Helo, you know I posted a question re V-22 payload at altitude in this forum a couple of months ago, and that time, no one answered. Thanks for your response. I think that you are trying to keep this discussion on a factual, and non-emotional basis.
You had mentioned the obvious advantages that a 250 kt machine provides in terms of the cargo tonnage and numbers of troops per unit time that such a machine can deliver to the troops on the ground. I am just theorizing that when the possibility of a tilt rotor became technically feasible USMC planners made basic mission assumptions and they included fairly long distances to the LZ and the standard 3000'/+90F USMC ambient condition.
Afghanistan presents different conditions: much shorter sortie distances and hotter/higher ambient conditions.Thus, depending on what the answer to my question is, it may be possible that a slower, but much higher payload pure helicopter may in fact deliver more tonnage/numbers of troops to the nearer LZ's, per unit time, than the V-22. In fact, I suspect that the posted comments about a change in the mix of USMC helos to V-22's may reflect that assessment. But its just a guess, and may be all wrong, again, depending on what the real V-22 Afghanistan mountain area payload is.
Thats where I was going with the question.
Thanks,
John Dixson
PS: Do those 53D's over there have the EAPS? I'd assume so.
You had mentioned the obvious advantages that a 250 kt machine provides in terms of the cargo tonnage and numbers of troops per unit time that such a machine can deliver to the troops on the ground. I am just theorizing that when the possibility of a tilt rotor became technically feasible USMC planners made basic mission assumptions and they included fairly long distances to the LZ and the standard 3000'/+90F USMC ambient condition.
Afghanistan presents different conditions: much shorter sortie distances and hotter/higher ambient conditions.Thus, depending on what the answer to my question is, it may be possible that a slower, but much higher payload pure helicopter may in fact deliver more tonnage/numbers of troops to the nearer LZ's, per unit time, than the V-22. In fact, I suspect that the posted comments about a change in the mix of USMC helos to V-22's may reflect that assessment. But its just a guess, and may be all wrong, again, depending on what the real V-22 Afghanistan mountain area payload is.
Thats where I was going with the question.
Thanks,
John Dixson
PS: Do those 53D's over there have the EAPS? I'd assume so.
Originally Posted by usmc helo
I made a statement about (what I feel) are the operational advantages of the V-22 compared to how the Marines do business today. It appears from the comments (with the exception of JohnDixson) made that no one here is capable of countering it so intstead we get more useless and unconfirmed dribble.
It must be nice, usmc helo, to know that yours are the only opinions that count...that everyone else's views are based on unfounded, emotional and irrational biases that have no basis in fact. You feel that the V-22 has certain operational advantages, so everyone else must therefore be wrong.
Got that right?
I do not deny that the V-22 has some very unique capabilities and that it does some things extremely well. I stay away from the "V-22 versus ____" arguments because they are pretty irrelevant.
My beefs with the V-22 are not emotional, irrational, nor unfounded. I believe it is a flawed, dangerous design that has already cost us far too much as a nation. To paraphrase something journalist Andy Rooney said about helicopters, the tilt-rotor hasn't been completely invented yet. Perhaps it never will be.
What if I told you that I was giving you an airplane? This airplane had two independant wings, left and right, one on each side of the cockpit. Those wings would stall at different speeds, suddenly and without warning. Additionally, I could not give you a reliable stall-warning system to alert you that this asymmetric stall was about to happen. But I would caution you that when one of those wings stalls, the plane will roll over and dive to earth and that you'd need around 2,000 vertical feet or so to recover. SO DON'T LET IT HAPPEN ON APPROACH!
That said, I would advise you to avoid certain risky rate-of-descent and airspeed combinations. These numbers would be very conservative, and I would add that "aggressive" and multi-axis control inputs on approach should also be avoided. However, this advice would come with the nudge-wink that you'll probably have to violate those "limitations" in the heat of battle, which we know can be fluid, changing and hectic.
What if I gave you such a plane? Would you fly it? I would not. At least not for anything other than easy Point A to Point B flights where nice, stable, conservative approaches could be made. You know, the opposite of combat. Yet pilots willingly jump into the V-22, then rave about what a wonderful aircraft it is because it's so...well, different. But of course! On the other hand, no one has flown one into battle before...never had to land one in a "hot" LZ. But no matter, because we all know that everything always goes according to plan during combat, right?
As I said, my other objection to the V-22 is what it's cost us so far. It is the hugest waste...yes, I said waste of money ever. I know this puts me at odds with the, "...at any cost-" group of tilt-rotor supporters who feel that it just doesn't matter how much money we have to spend on the concept, it's that good. Well, maybe not, judging by the evidence that the military is reluctantly letting out. The fact that the V-22 is not going to Afghanistan but yet helicopters are speaks volumes. We're paying so much money for an aircraft that only has any real advantage over a helicopter at sea level?? Dear Lord!
So you, usmc helo, and I have vastly different opinions on the V-22. It is interesting that you characterize those who disagree with you as spewing "dribble," confusing that word for the proper word, drivel. Tells us who you are.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: tx
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
Agree with all you said. We should constantly be looking at the proper mix and that's probably what they are doing. I suspect that they may be considering increasing the buy for the UH-1Y to pick the lower end roles that the 46 will be vacating.
FH1100,
Can you tell us why it is you think a V-22 is more likely to get into VRS (or AVRS) than a traditional RW airframe? Is it because it's limited to "9.1mph"?
I do believe in the past you posted that you knew one of the pilots in the Marana crash yet you are not emotional about this. Face the facts, he was at over 2500 fpm rate of descent at what 300 or 400 feet? As SASLESS said re Mayaquez "pilot error....pure and simple"
Dribble- It's exactly the word I meant, look at all it's meanings and perhaps you can find the one I meant for you.
Agree with all you said. We should constantly be looking at the proper mix and that's probably what they are doing. I suspect that they may be considering increasing the buy for the UH-1Y to pick the lower end roles that the 46 will be vacating.
FH1100,
Can you tell us why it is you think a V-22 is more likely to get into VRS (or AVRS) than a traditional RW airframe? Is it because it's limited to "9.1mph"?
I do believe in the past you posted that you knew one of the pilots in the Marana crash yet you are not emotional about this. Face the facts, he was at over 2500 fpm rate of descent at what 300 or 400 feet? As SASLESS said re Mayaquez "pilot error....pure and simple"
Dribble- It's exactly the word I meant, look at all it's meanings and perhaps you can find the one I meant for you.
No, usmc helo, I did not know either Major Brow or Major Gruber, the two pilots who died (along with the other Marines) at Marana that night. But I feel that I've come to know them. And I am not ready to write them off, nor write the Marana accident off as "...pilot error, pure and simple." I am sympathetic to them, and defend them because they did not know that they were de facto test pilots for Bell-Boeing. They did not realize that they'd been given an aircraft that had defective, unexplored flying qualities.
I do not believe that the V-22 is any more or less susceptible to VRS than any helicopter; I just believe that the consequences of Asymmetrical-VRS are much more deadly.
People keep equating VRS in the V-22 to VRS in a helicopter, and this is a mistake. It is definitely *not* the case. When *one* proprotor goes into VRS, the tilt-rotor aircraft will roll over and dive to earth. If this happens up high, say around 2,000 or 3,000 feet, no problem! The pilot need only recognize what's happening, then beep the nacelles forward and voila!, instant escape. But VRS, or A-VRS does not happen up high.
Asymmetical-VRS will happen down low, at the bottom of an f'ed up approach, as happened to Majors Brow and Gruber. The start of the accident sequence will be subtle, just as it was in Marana. The crew will be in one of those "high gain" task situations, concentrating on getting into an LZ and dodging enemy fire. The ship will bank in one direction or other, and the pilot will "correct" by adding anti-roll control input. But he'll be doing exactly the wrong thing, making things worse, by increasing the pitch of the affected proprotor. Before he knows what's happening, the ship will be rolling uncontrollably.
This *will* happen.
Most people assume that the Marana V-22 crashed because the pilots initiated and held a rate of descent of 4,000 fpm, until the ship got into "VRS." This is not true. In point of fact, yes, the initial RoD had been very high as they maneuvered to stay in position on Lead, but the V-22 had actually decreased its rate of descent to 150 fpm where it stabilized for at least 6 seconds or longer (count it out if you must). The high rate of descent had been arrested. Or at least they were in a transition mode as they leveled off at 566 feet. They then increased their rate of descent again to 800 fpm at 500 feet, which is when the A-VRS got them.
There are now strict limitations on V-22's with regard to multiple-axis control inputs *and* yaw inputs when operating in helicopter mode. Why? Because the handling of the V-22 is still deficient in these areas. And the Navy knows it.
Pro-tiltrotor advocates gloss over A-VRS as inconsequential or insignificant. "Easily detectable! Easily escapable!" they claim. "Why, all the V-22 pilot has to do is keep his rate of descent below 800 feet per minute! ...And make no multiple-axis control inputs...and make no yaw inputs either. That's all! Easy as pie."
Uh-huh. In combat. Yeah.
I know I harp on this like a broken record. But the aerodynamic deficiencies that resulted in the Marana crash have not been corrected...can never be corrected. And thus, an accident of that same type will be repeated. If anyone can live with that, well, you are more callous and heartless than I am. I think our military pilots, crewmembers and servicemen who fly in these aircraft deserve better than that.
If that makes me an emotional dribbler, well, so be it.
I do not believe that the V-22 is any more or less susceptible to VRS than any helicopter; I just believe that the consequences of Asymmetrical-VRS are much more deadly.
People keep equating VRS in the V-22 to VRS in a helicopter, and this is a mistake. It is definitely *not* the case. When *one* proprotor goes into VRS, the tilt-rotor aircraft will roll over and dive to earth. If this happens up high, say around 2,000 or 3,000 feet, no problem! The pilot need only recognize what's happening, then beep the nacelles forward and voila!, instant escape. But VRS, or A-VRS does not happen up high.
Asymmetical-VRS will happen down low, at the bottom of an f'ed up approach, as happened to Majors Brow and Gruber. The start of the accident sequence will be subtle, just as it was in Marana. The crew will be in one of those "high gain" task situations, concentrating on getting into an LZ and dodging enemy fire. The ship will bank in one direction or other, and the pilot will "correct" by adding anti-roll control input. But he'll be doing exactly the wrong thing, making things worse, by increasing the pitch of the affected proprotor. Before he knows what's happening, the ship will be rolling uncontrollably.
This *will* happen.
Most people assume that the Marana V-22 crashed because the pilots initiated and held a rate of descent of 4,000 fpm, until the ship got into "VRS." This is not true. In point of fact, yes, the initial RoD had been very high as they maneuvered to stay in position on Lead, but the V-22 had actually decreased its rate of descent to 150 fpm where it stabilized for at least 6 seconds or longer (count it out if you must). The high rate of descent had been arrested. Or at least they were in a transition mode as they leveled off at 566 feet. They then increased their rate of descent again to 800 fpm at 500 feet, which is when the A-VRS got them.
There are now strict limitations on V-22's with regard to multiple-axis control inputs *and* yaw inputs when operating in helicopter mode. Why? Because the handling of the V-22 is still deficient in these areas. And the Navy knows it.
Pro-tiltrotor advocates gloss over A-VRS as inconsequential or insignificant. "Easily detectable! Easily escapable!" they claim. "Why, all the V-22 pilot has to do is keep his rate of descent below 800 feet per minute! ...And make no multiple-axis control inputs...and make no yaw inputs either. That's all! Easy as pie."
Uh-huh. In combat. Yeah.
I know I harp on this like a broken record. But the aerodynamic deficiencies that resulted in the Marana crash have not been corrected...can never be corrected. And thus, an accident of that same type will be repeated. If anyone can live with that, well, you are more callous and heartless than I am. I think our military pilots, crewmembers and servicemen who fly in these aircraft deserve better than that.
If that makes me an emotional dribbler, well, so be it.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
USMC helo and FH 1100,I am an USMC fixed wing pilot and knew Boot Brow for about 9 years prior to the Marana accident. I had some long conversations with him just a few weeks prior up at Pax involving asymmetric ring vortex (I understood the asymmetric part but he had to explain the ring vortex as I only had one hour of rotary aero). This was also the week that the NAVAIR and Bell engineers insisted that the -22 could tank with an engine out. Boot and the tanker pilot found out different despite proof the 1st two attempts that it was impossible. Boot and Mutant refused to go up again unless the engineers flew with them. After the flight they re-looked at their numbers and the requirement to AR engine out disappeared. According to Boot that week the engineers insisted there was absolutely zero chance of any asymmetric problems and rates of descent were good to 4,000 FPM. The numbers were changed post mishap when the reality hit the helo bubbas and engineers.Take a look at your hourly cost and how those numbers are derived. Notice that the flight hour cost does not include engine warranty, avionics under warranty, personnel costs (ala USA and USAF), and extra support equipment required. What is the real cost per flight hour? No one knows.Currently there are two former -22 drivers within 30' of me and neither wants anything to do with the platform. Using the Harriers off the boat for escort, what about the type 3 CAS and deck cycle? Long range stuff where it is actually a longer track than the -53E when you account for additional divert requirements due to no engine out AR ability. What is the actual transit time? With the additional hose factor times the additional aircraft required to carry whatever which brings more to the fight the quickest?2005 the -22 attempted to re-create Eagle Claw, Nellis to the East Coast. They had 8 KC-130s. With the hose factors they had no escorts and were down to 14,000' MSL while dodging some icing. Average cruise was only 230 and the tankers evidently had to slow to 210 to allow the -22 to tank down at 14,000' (a very bad altitude for both Herk and Osprey).Compare the movement of 6 Ch-53Es from Saipan along with 4 F/A-18s from Guam with 9 KC-130s. South to Yap, Palau, etc, to Southern Philippines and all landing at Clark. On FARP sites, remember Anaconda? More than a few USMC bulk fuel teams with bladders placed by CH-53Es. Two of those teams were mine (MWSS plus up to the MEU on short notice). I'm not a helo bubba but the only thing that could place as much fuel in place as fast was the -53E. For the smaller logistical footprint and actual transit time delta (include times into and out of the zone) which delivers more combat power? The one that requires less support while hauling more/higher and can utilize rotary assets for escort thus freeing fixed wing for other missions?S/F, FOG
Last edited by FOGII; 30th Jun 2009 at 19:25. Reason: Spelling and a grammer error
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: tx
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FH1100,
I have a couple of questions based on two of your comments:
"Asymmetical-VRS will happen down low, at the bottom of an f'ed up approach"
"The crew will be in one of those "high gain" task situations, concentrating on getting into an LZ and dodging enemy fire."
What do you think a -22 tactical approach profile looks like, what do you think a -46, -53, -60 profile looks like, when do you think the enemy is most likely to fire and how much maneuverablity do you think a section or division of aircraft have to "dodge enemy fire" when on final to the LZ.
If an approach is 'f'ed up' it begs the question why not wave off as we are trained to do?
The majority of USMC operations are done as a 2 or 3 ship formation. Therefore the enemy would most likely wait until the formation was on short final and in a flare (low engery state) to open fire. In short, because you are in a formation and at a low airspeed there isn't much maneuvering to be done that will affect the accuracy of the gunners on the ground, accelerating away from the zone is your best option. It could be that the -22 can get out of this situation better than a helicopter. Since nacelles are use to control airspeed the -22 will have less pitch attitude required to decelerate (better FOV for the pilots) and can accererate to above 60 knots faster than a helicopter thus making it harder to track. I don't think that the -22 profile will make it as susceptible to A-VRS as you do. I think a bigger concern in your scenario is the lack of suppressive fire.
I don't know anyone who thinks that A-VRS is inconsequential or insignificant. I think most believe that it can be trained to by following the same techniques we use on other platforms. You left out one very important parameter of the 800 fpm, it' s the airspeed component which is airspeed below 40 kts (which is short final at less than 100 ft agl in a tactical approach). This whole 40kt/800fpm was taught to us at flight school in the TH-57 (well before Marana), is a warning in most every USMC RW NATOPS, and a condition that we constantly train to avoid by flying tactical profiles that keep us out of it. I'm sure they can do the same in the -22 which doesn't make me callous, I'm just going to trust the Marines who operate the aircraft to do what we've done before. You don't, there's the difference.
I have a couple of questions based on two of your comments:
"Asymmetical-VRS will happen down low, at the bottom of an f'ed up approach"
"The crew will be in one of those "high gain" task situations, concentrating on getting into an LZ and dodging enemy fire."
What do you think a -22 tactical approach profile looks like, what do you think a -46, -53, -60 profile looks like, when do you think the enemy is most likely to fire and how much maneuverablity do you think a section or division of aircraft have to "dodge enemy fire" when on final to the LZ.
If an approach is 'f'ed up' it begs the question why not wave off as we are trained to do?
The majority of USMC operations are done as a 2 or 3 ship formation. Therefore the enemy would most likely wait until the formation was on short final and in a flare (low engery state) to open fire. In short, because you are in a formation and at a low airspeed there isn't much maneuvering to be done that will affect the accuracy of the gunners on the ground, accelerating away from the zone is your best option. It could be that the -22 can get out of this situation better than a helicopter. Since nacelles are use to control airspeed the -22 will have less pitch attitude required to decelerate (better FOV for the pilots) and can accererate to above 60 knots faster than a helicopter thus making it harder to track. I don't think that the -22 profile will make it as susceptible to A-VRS as you do. I think a bigger concern in your scenario is the lack of suppressive fire.
I don't know anyone who thinks that A-VRS is inconsequential or insignificant. I think most believe that it can be trained to by following the same techniques we use on other platforms. You left out one very important parameter of the 800 fpm, it' s the airspeed component which is airspeed below 40 kts (which is short final at less than 100 ft agl in a tactical approach). This whole 40kt/800fpm was taught to us at flight school in the TH-57 (well before Marana), is a warning in most every USMC RW NATOPS, and a condition that we constantly train to avoid by flying tactical profiles that keep us out of it. I'm sure they can do the same in the -22 which doesn't make me callous, I'm just going to trust the Marines who operate the aircraft to do what we've done before. You don't, there's the difference.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At Last! Good V-22 News? NOT !!
Ospreys evacuate injured sailor from ship
June 30, 2009 - 9:03 PM
Sue Book
CHERRY POINT - The 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit and Marine Medium Tiltrotar Squadron VMM 263 conducted the first ship-to-shore emergency medical evacuation using Osprey aircraft, MCAS Cherry Point Public Affairs said on Tuesday.
Members of the unit used two MV-22B Ospreys on Thursday to evacuate a sailor from the USS Bataan.
At about 4:30 p.m., two Ospreys were returning to the Bataan after a routine mission when the pilots were notified of an emergency situation, the Marine Corps reported. It involved a sailor who had suffered head and hip injuries and was experiencing chest pains after falling.
"The aircraft were ordered to return to the ship at maximum speed," the report said. "After landing aboard Bataan, the patient and team of medical personnel were brought aboard the aircraft and lifted off at 4:50 p.m. from Bataan's flight deck. The aircraft traveled 147 nautical miles in 37 minutes to a regional airport where an ambulance was used to transfer the sailor to a hospital for further treatment. The sailor is in stable condition in the U.S. Central Command area awaiting further transfer."
Maj. Brett A. Hart, assistant operations officer for VMM 263 and one of the pilots on the mission, said, "Everybody from the ship made this very easy for us. It was an all-hands effort and everybody gave their utmost to ensure the safety of this sailor."
He said the biggest difference in this rescue and one using helicopters like the CH-46E Sea Knight is the rapid speed in which the mission was executed.
"By virtue of having this aircraft, we were able to do it much faster and farther," said Hart. "This is a fine example of why we have an aircraft like this."
After a sputtering start, the MV-22 Osprey is considered the Marine Corps' star battfield aircraft but is being closely scrutinized in Washington on cost and performance issues.
Aerospace DAILY reported on June 24 that the aircraft is again a target for some lawmakers and the Corps would be looking for whatever advantage they can find to keep it.
Aviation Week reported on Monday that an analysist for the Teal Group, which analyzes aerospace and defense industry matters, advised "don't bet against the Marines. They even beat Dick Cheney on this one," referring to several failed attempts by Cheney to quash the Osprey program while serving as George H.W. Bush's defense secretary.
The analyst concluded that the versatility highlighted by this kind mission will help make the Marines' case.
Reader Comments
georgia1 wrote:
It would have only taken one, not two H-46s to get a medevac ashore.
Perhaps he was extra large which required two V-22s, unless of course their still trying to accumulate double the 'medevac' sorties/hours by having an 'extra' V-22 tag-along?7/1/2009 5:32 AM EDT on newbernsj.com
bohica570 wrote:
A NEW "PEDRO" * IS BORN!!!
HOORAH!! 6/30/2009 9:43 PM EDT on newbernsj.com
SOURCE: Ospreys evacuate injured sailor from ship | aircraft, sailor, bataan - Sun Journal
Last week, the Government Accountability Office issued a scathing report that found numerous deficiencies with the Osprey. Among them are that it cannot carry the number of troops and equipment it was originally built to handle, or fly above 10,000 feet. That is a problem in Afghanistan, where mountains soar above 12,000 feet.
June 30, 2009 - 9:03 PM
Sue Book
CHERRY POINT - The 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit and Marine Medium Tiltrotar Squadron VMM 263 conducted the first ship-to-shore emergency medical evacuation using Osprey aircraft, MCAS Cherry Point Public Affairs said on Tuesday.
Members of the unit used two MV-22B Ospreys on Thursday to evacuate a sailor from the USS Bataan.
At about 4:30 p.m., two Ospreys were returning to the Bataan after a routine mission when the pilots were notified of an emergency situation, the Marine Corps reported. It involved a sailor who had suffered head and hip injuries and was experiencing chest pains after falling.
"The aircraft were ordered to return to the ship at maximum speed," the report said. "After landing aboard Bataan, the patient and team of medical personnel were brought aboard the aircraft and lifted off at 4:50 p.m. from Bataan's flight deck. The aircraft traveled 147 nautical miles in 37 minutes to a regional airport where an ambulance was used to transfer the sailor to a hospital for further treatment. The sailor is in stable condition in the U.S. Central Command area awaiting further transfer."
Maj. Brett A. Hart, assistant operations officer for VMM 263 and one of the pilots on the mission, said, "Everybody from the ship made this very easy for us. It was an all-hands effort and everybody gave their utmost to ensure the safety of this sailor."
He said the biggest difference in this rescue and one using helicopters like the CH-46E Sea Knight is the rapid speed in which the mission was executed.
"By virtue of having this aircraft, we were able to do it much faster and farther," said Hart. "This is a fine example of why we have an aircraft like this."
After a sputtering start, the MV-22 Osprey is considered the Marine Corps' star battfield aircraft but is being closely scrutinized in Washington on cost and performance issues.
Aerospace DAILY reported on June 24 that the aircraft is again a target for some lawmakers and the Corps would be looking for whatever advantage they can find to keep it.
Aviation Week reported on Monday that an analysist for the Teal Group, which analyzes aerospace and defense industry matters, advised "don't bet against the Marines. They even beat Dick Cheney on this one," referring to several failed attempts by Cheney to quash the Osprey program while serving as George H.W. Bush's defense secretary.
The analyst concluded that the versatility highlighted by this kind mission will help make the Marines' case.
Reader Comments
georgia1 wrote:
It would have only taken one, not two H-46s to get a medevac ashore.
Perhaps he was extra large which required two V-22s, unless of course their still trying to accumulate double the 'medevac' sorties/hours by having an 'extra' V-22 tag-along?7/1/2009 5:32 AM EDT on newbernsj.com
Recommended (1)
bohica570 wrote:
A NEW "PEDRO" * IS BORN!!!
HOORAH!! 6/30/2009 9:43 PM EDT on newbernsj.com
SOURCE: Ospreys evacuate injured sailor from ship | aircraft, sailor, bataan - Sun Journal
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDITORIAL: Go slow with Osprey; keep helicopters
EDITORIAL: Go slow with Osprey; keep helicopters
OUR VIEW: Sorry history, new report reason for caution
By the North County Times Opinion staff -- [email protected] | Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:11 AM PDT ∞
The U.S. Marine Corps has a stellar reputation worldwide, but we do have to question the wisdom of its leadership's determination to push the Osprey V-22 program.
Questions about this combination plane-and-helicopter hybrid have existed since its inception, and the aircraft was never tested in real-world conditions before being deployed.
Now in service in the war in Iraq, the Osprey has repeatedly come up short. Those failings have been so severe that plans to deploy the craft to Afghanistan have been put on hold.
Last week, the Government Accountability Office issued a scathing report that found numerous deficiencies with the Osprey. Among them are that it cannot carry the number of troops and equipment it was originally built to handle, or fly above 10,000 feet. That is a problem in Afghanistan, where mountains soar above 12,000 feet.
Even more telling, research and development costs have ballooned from $4.2 billion to nearly $13 billion, despite the reduction in the number planned for purchase by the Marine Corps and Air Force.
To date, the Marine Corps has spent nearly $29 billion to develop the craft, which first flew 20 years ago. Twenty-seven Marines, including 18 from Camp Pendleton and Miramar, were killed in a series of crashes between 1992 and 2000.
The military brass still has high hopes for the Osprey to become its new combat workhorse and ultimately to replace its fleet of Vietnam War-era helicopters. And our local Marine bases are beginning the phase-out process.
Last week's report, however, is suggesting the Corps keep the older aircraft so the Marines can carry out their missions.
Given the Osprey's sorry history, we join the report in urging caution.
Our fighting men and women deserve the best equipment the nation can provide. And so far, the Osprey just doesn't seem to pass muster.
Last edited by Dan Reno; 1st Jul 2009 at 11:32.
Well, you know...
The USS Bataan (LHD-5) just happens to be an amphibious assault ship that already carries (variously) Harriers, CH-46's, CH-53E's, UH-1N's, AH-1W's and (ta-da!) V-22's. As reported in the article, these two particular V-22's were on their way back to the ship when they got the call to put the pedal to the metal.
But...
What if the Bataan had just tasked one of their resident MH-53's to do the job? Had the injured sailor been put on a '53 at 4:30 instead of waiting for the V-22 to get back, he would've arrived that same airport at about the same time, negating any speed advantage that the V-22 has. But that wouldn't have made quite as good a news story, would it?
Okay, so they wanted to highlight the speed of the V-22 and use it for the job, and this was a pretty good opportunity. I get that.
But...
What if the V-22 could *not* have landed on the boat? Could the sailor have been winched aboard?
There is no doubt that a properly-equipped V-22 would make a kick-ass SAR aircraft. But this is not a case where the V-22 was the only aircraft that could do this job, or that the V-22 did the job "better" than anything else in the fleet, or that the V-22 "saved a life" that would otherwise have been lost had it not been available.
This little medevac run makes for a nice story, but by itself it hardly justifies the existence of the V-22 - especially when you know more of the story.
The USS Bataan (LHD-5) just happens to be an amphibious assault ship that already carries (variously) Harriers, CH-46's, CH-53E's, UH-1N's, AH-1W's and (ta-da!) V-22's. As reported in the article, these two particular V-22's were on their way back to the ship when they got the call to put the pedal to the metal.
But...
What if the Bataan had just tasked one of their resident MH-53's to do the job? Had the injured sailor been put on a '53 at 4:30 instead of waiting for the V-22 to get back, he would've arrived that same airport at about the same time, negating any speed advantage that the V-22 has. But that wouldn't have made quite as good a news story, would it?
Okay, so they wanted to highlight the speed of the V-22 and use it for the job, and this was a pretty good opportunity. I get that.
But...
What if the V-22 could *not* have landed on the boat? Could the sailor have been winched aboard?
There is no doubt that a properly-equipped V-22 would make a kick-ass SAR aircraft. But this is not a case where the V-22 was the only aircraft that could do this job, or that the V-22 did the job "better" than anything else in the fleet, or that the V-22 "saved a life" that would otherwise have been lost had it not been available.
This little medevac run makes for a nice story, but by itself it hardly justifies the existence of the V-22 - especially when you know more of the story.