More good news about the Osprey.....not!
Thread Starter
More good news about the Osprey.....not!
Giving the Osprey More Firepower By MARK THOMPSON
Sat Oct 20, 8:50 AM ET
After investing $20 billion over 25 years and losing 30 lives in the development of the controversial V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, known as the Osprey, the U.S. military might like to think that its long-awaited combat debut would go relatively smoothly. But even as 10 Marine V-22s have just arrived in Iraq, the Air Force - which is buying V-22s for special operations missions - has decided the gun on the marine's version isn't good enough for an aircraft expressly designed to ferry troops into hot landing zones.
The Marines now flying the $120 million aircraft have insisted that the small gun slung from the aircraft's opened rear ramp is adequate for war. That's a claim disputed by retired Marine general James Jones, who ordered a beefed-up, forward-firing gun for the V-22 when he was serving as the Corps' top officer from 1999 to 2003. The requirement evaporated after Jones stepped down as commandant, but the Air Force, which is buying 50 V-22s for the Special Ops command, seems to agree with Jones.
"It is critical that the CV-22 possess a self-defense capability that will provide maximum protection from threats in the vicinity of the landing zone," the Special Op Command says in a recent message to contractors seeking an improved gun. Its list of requirements shows that the gun now on the V-22s in Iraq falls far short of what it wants, including "maximum coverage of all quadrants" - in other words, the ability to fire in the direction that the V-22 is going, not merely where it has been, as is the case with the current gun. The special-ops V-22 is slated to enter service in 2009.
This dispute is just the latest chapter in a troubled program begun in 1981 to provide a troop transport for all four military services; the Army dropped out two years later for cost reasons, and then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, also citing cost, failed to kill it over objections from Congress - and the Marines. The V-22, built by Bell Helicopter and the Boeing Co., was deemed ideal for carrying troops because it can take off and land like a helicopter, then tilt its engines and rotors forward to fly like a turboprop airplane. After three fatal crashes, numerous delays and compromises that some inside the military believe endanger those on board, the 10 V-22s are finally based at al Asad air base in western Iraq (the Marines have clamped down on all information about their operations, but expect a formal Iraqi unveiling of the V-22s soon).
At least one contractor agrees with the Air Force that the interim gun aboard the V-22 is wanting. BAE Systems has been investing in the development of a remotely-aimed gun that could be slung from the V-22's belly and installed starting in about a year, BAE officials say. The gun, which could range in size from 7.62 mm (the size of the current gun) to .50-cal. (the size Jones wanted) would protrude from the V-22's belly, just forward of the swiveling gun. A V-22 crew member located in the passenger compartment would fire the gun, based on the video images displayed, with a hand-held controller. A Pentagon official says this design, while perhaps adequate for special-ops V-22s, wouldn't replace the need for a final weapon for the Marine V-22 that would be integrated into the aircraft's internal electronic and computer systems. The Pentagon is seeking $82 million to develop a permanent gun, on top of the $45 million it already spent trying to meet Jones' requirement for one.
V-22 pilots like Marine Lieutenant Colonel Anthony "Buddy" Bianca know their aircraft is heading off to war with inadequate firepower. "It says right there in the ORD" -- the Operational Requirements Document specifying what the aircraft must be able to do -- that "the aircraft is supposed to have 360 degrees field of fire with a defensive weapon," says Bianca, who has spent 1,300 hours flying the V-22 over the past eight years. "I don't care if its a turret, you stick it out of a window or you patch it on with bubblegum, but we've got to find a way to do that." Bianca, 40, told TIME that the current rear gun is "not the answer," and that Marines are planning on installing a better gun eventually. He pauses when asked if he thinks the V-22 should be sent to Iraq with the small, ramp-mounted gun as its only weapon. "That question," he says, "is not mine to say."
But as has always been the case in war, the more junior the officer, the less concerned he is about the weapon he is bringing to the fight. The gun doesn't faze Captain Justin "Moon" McKinney from Albany, Georgia, who has spent nearly 200 hours flying the V-22 over the past year. McKinney, 30, and his fellow "Thunder Chickens" of Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 from Jacksonville, N.C., are now in Iraq. "I think the weapon," he said as he readied for the deployment, "is very sufficient."
Bianca recalls why Jones' original scheme for a bigger gun was scrapped. "It was primarily cost, to be honest with you," he said. "I was in the room when (the contractors) were basically told that `this was our price-tag limits to develop this weapon' and they came back with a price tag and were told, `Well guys, you just designed yourself out of a weapons system.'" The gun's ultimate cost - $1.5 million a copy - ended up being too expensive in the Pentagon's eyes. That price - barely more than 1% of the V-22's current cost - ultimately doomed it, and sent the aircraft to Iraq sporting a weapon some Marines deride as a "peashooter."
Good Grief! Charlie Brown!
Sat Oct 20, 8:50 AM ET
After investing $20 billion over 25 years and losing 30 lives in the development of the controversial V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, known as the Osprey, the U.S. military might like to think that its long-awaited combat debut would go relatively smoothly. But even as 10 Marine V-22s have just arrived in Iraq, the Air Force - which is buying V-22s for special operations missions - has decided the gun on the marine's version isn't good enough for an aircraft expressly designed to ferry troops into hot landing zones.
The Marines now flying the $120 million aircraft have insisted that the small gun slung from the aircraft's opened rear ramp is adequate for war. That's a claim disputed by retired Marine general James Jones, who ordered a beefed-up, forward-firing gun for the V-22 when he was serving as the Corps' top officer from 1999 to 2003. The requirement evaporated after Jones stepped down as commandant, but the Air Force, which is buying 50 V-22s for the Special Ops command, seems to agree with Jones.
"It is critical that the CV-22 possess a self-defense capability that will provide maximum protection from threats in the vicinity of the landing zone," the Special Op Command says in a recent message to contractors seeking an improved gun. Its list of requirements shows that the gun now on the V-22s in Iraq falls far short of what it wants, including "maximum coverage of all quadrants" - in other words, the ability to fire in the direction that the V-22 is going, not merely where it has been, as is the case with the current gun. The special-ops V-22 is slated to enter service in 2009.
This dispute is just the latest chapter in a troubled program begun in 1981 to provide a troop transport for all four military services; the Army dropped out two years later for cost reasons, and then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, also citing cost, failed to kill it over objections from Congress - and the Marines. The V-22, built by Bell Helicopter and the Boeing Co., was deemed ideal for carrying troops because it can take off and land like a helicopter, then tilt its engines and rotors forward to fly like a turboprop airplane. After three fatal crashes, numerous delays and compromises that some inside the military believe endanger those on board, the 10 V-22s are finally based at al Asad air base in western Iraq (the Marines have clamped down on all information about their operations, but expect a formal Iraqi unveiling of the V-22s soon).
At least one contractor agrees with the Air Force that the interim gun aboard the V-22 is wanting. BAE Systems has been investing in the development of a remotely-aimed gun that could be slung from the V-22's belly and installed starting in about a year, BAE officials say. The gun, which could range in size from 7.62 mm (the size of the current gun) to .50-cal. (the size Jones wanted) would protrude from the V-22's belly, just forward of the swiveling gun. A V-22 crew member located in the passenger compartment would fire the gun, based on the video images displayed, with a hand-held controller. A Pentagon official says this design, while perhaps adequate for special-ops V-22s, wouldn't replace the need for a final weapon for the Marine V-22 that would be integrated into the aircraft's internal electronic and computer systems. The Pentagon is seeking $82 million to develop a permanent gun, on top of the $45 million it already spent trying to meet Jones' requirement for one.
V-22 pilots like Marine Lieutenant Colonel Anthony "Buddy" Bianca know their aircraft is heading off to war with inadequate firepower. "It says right there in the ORD" -- the Operational Requirements Document specifying what the aircraft must be able to do -- that "the aircraft is supposed to have 360 degrees field of fire with a defensive weapon," says Bianca, who has spent 1,300 hours flying the V-22 over the past eight years. "I don't care if its a turret, you stick it out of a window or you patch it on with bubblegum, but we've got to find a way to do that." Bianca, 40, told TIME that the current rear gun is "not the answer," and that Marines are planning on installing a better gun eventually. He pauses when asked if he thinks the V-22 should be sent to Iraq with the small, ramp-mounted gun as its only weapon. "That question," he says, "is not mine to say."
But as has always been the case in war, the more junior the officer, the less concerned he is about the weapon he is bringing to the fight. The gun doesn't faze Captain Justin "Moon" McKinney from Albany, Georgia, who has spent nearly 200 hours flying the V-22 over the past year. McKinney, 30, and his fellow "Thunder Chickens" of Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 from Jacksonville, N.C., are now in Iraq. "I think the weapon," he said as he readied for the deployment, "is very sufficient."
Bianca recalls why Jones' original scheme for a bigger gun was scrapped. "It was primarily cost, to be honest with you," he said. "I was in the room when (the contractors) were basically told that `this was our price-tag limits to develop this weapon' and they came back with a price tag and were told, `Well guys, you just designed yourself out of a weapons system.'" The gun's ultimate cost - $1.5 million a copy - ended up being too expensive in the Pentagon's eyes. That price - barely more than 1% of the V-22's current cost - ultimately doomed it, and sent the aircraft to Iraq sporting a weapon some Marines deride as a "peashooter."
Good Grief! Charlie Brown!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,583
Received 441 Likes
on
233 Posts
But a bigger weapon equals more weight, both to possibly alter and beef up the aircraft's structure if required (far too late for that, I expect) and the extra mass of the larger weapon and its larger calibre ammunition.
All of which means a lower "real" payload. A design compromise, as always.
Let's hope they got it right, because they are about to find out. Thanks goodness there is no air to air threat in theatre.
All of which means a lower "real" payload. A design compromise, as always.
Let's hope they got it right, because they are about to find out. Thanks goodness there is no air to air threat in theatre.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Problem, Same Albatross
http://www.jdnews.com/sections/news/
Osprey forced to land
November 7, 2007 - 1:47AM
Marine officials are providing few details about what they are calling an "aviation-related mishap" on Tuesday night.
A Marine aircraft from the New River Air Station was involved in the mishap in the Camp Davis area near Holly Ridge at 9:20 p.m., according to air station spokeswoman Staff Sgt. Angela Mink.
"There was not a crash," she said.
Responders were still on the scene late Tuesday night, dealing with the issue and investigating what happened. There were no injuries, Mink said.
Onslow County Emergency Management Director Mark Goodman said the aircraft involved was an MV-22 Osprey, which Marine Corps officials did not confirm.
The Osprey was "forced to land with its engine on fire," Goodman said.
Military police at the site would not say whether the fire caused the landing or the landing caused the fire. Fire officials in Holly Ridge - the first fire department to respond - said they were under a gag order from military police and could not comment on the incident.
The world's first tiltrotor squadron - VMM-263 - stood up at New River in March 2006. That unit deployed in September. The air station's VMM-162 became the second tiltrotor squadron in August and is training to replace VMM-263 when the unit returns early next year.
Two Osprey crashes in 2000 - including one in Jacksonville - killed 23 service members and forced military officials to ground the aircraft for more than a year. The tiltrotor aircraft that flies like an airplane but can take off and land like a helicopter has been in development for decades and is scheduled to replace the CH-46 helicopter.
It is unclear which unit had the aircraft involved in the incident. New River Air Station has five tiltrotor squadrons, including VMM-263, VMM-162 and another deployable unit. A fourth is for tests and evaluation and the other is a training squadron. The air station also has numerous helicopter squadrons.
The Tuesday evening "mishap" happened 1.8 miles west of U.S. 17 on N.C. 50.
Osprey forced to land
November 7, 2007 - 1:47AM
Marine officials are providing few details about what they are calling an "aviation-related mishap" on Tuesday night.
A Marine aircraft from the New River Air Station was involved in the mishap in the Camp Davis area near Holly Ridge at 9:20 p.m., according to air station spokeswoman Staff Sgt. Angela Mink.
"There was not a crash," she said.
Responders were still on the scene late Tuesday night, dealing with the issue and investigating what happened. There were no injuries, Mink said.
Onslow County Emergency Management Director Mark Goodman said the aircraft involved was an MV-22 Osprey, which Marine Corps officials did not confirm.
The Osprey was "forced to land with its engine on fire," Goodman said.
Military police at the site would not say whether the fire caused the landing or the landing caused the fire. Fire officials in Holly Ridge - the first fire department to respond - said they were under a gag order from military police and could not comment on the incident.
The world's first tiltrotor squadron - VMM-263 - stood up at New River in March 2006. That unit deployed in September. The air station's VMM-162 became the second tiltrotor squadron in August and is training to replace VMM-263 when the unit returns early next year.
Two Osprey crashes in 2000 - including one in Jacksonville - killed 23 service members and forced military officials to ground the aircraft for more than a year. The tiltrotor aircraft that flies like an airplane but can take off and land like a helicopter has been in development for decades and is scheduled to replace the CH-46 helicopter.
It is unclear which unit had the aircraft involved in the incident. New River Air Station has five tiltrotor squadrons, including VMM-263, VMM-162 and another deployable unit. A fourth is for tests and evaluation and the other is a training squadron. The air station also has numerous helicopter squadrons.
The Tuesday evening "mishap" happened 1.8 miles west of U.S. 17 on N.C. 50.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damage Control At Work.
I just went to the newspaper article and found that three reader comments had already been removed and the fire still hadn't cooled yet! Looks like the OEM and USMC damage control folks have begun a cover-up like they did with the one that lost it's wing on the flight line as it's status still hasn't been officially reported! Guess their still waiting for that one to cool off also?! Can't wait to see the pics of it being externaled from that field back to new River with a CH-53E or the flatbed truck carrying it back to base. Perhaps someone nearby New River can get some pics? Time magazine would pay BIG bucks for it after all the flak they've got from the USMC and OEM over their recent negative report on it..
Last edited by Dan Reno; 7th Nov 2007 at 11:50.
Thread Starter
I see the New River Ospreys fairly frequently as they do some training flights to MCAS Cherry Point which is near the marina where I keep my boat. They are impressive machines as they go by....one has to admit it is a very unusual concept.
As compared to the 46's, 47's, 53's, and both Cobra's and Apache's...they have a sound print that makes them stand out from the rest. From dead ahead...they are quiet...but get very noisy as they go by.
As to the "clamming up".....it must be organizational....for when one brings up the Osprey's problems....."Mum is the word!" amongst the active duty Marines I encounter.
As compared to the 46's, 47's, 53's, and both Cobra's and Apache's...they have a sound print that makes them stand out from the rest. From dead ahead...they are quiet...but get very noisy as they go by.
As to the "clamming up".....it must be organizational....for when one brings up the Osprey's problems....."Mum is the word!" amongst the active duty Marines I encounter.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Somewhere, Over the Rainbow
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In regards to the weaponry -- Blackhawks have been mounting door guns with the wing mounted tanks on for many years... just gotta put a little widget on that prevents you from shooting the tanks. With all the technology out there these days, there has to be some way to do the same thing with a computer or other contraption that lets you fire so long as the wing and engines aren't in the way? Even just a stop that applies when the prop rotors are in hover mode. I doubt the gunners will be shooting much when they're cruisin at mach 9, but on approach and departure they'd have something.
It'd be better than nothing, thats for sure.
Mike
It'd be better than nothing, thats for sure.
Mike
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scratch this V-22 airframe and the one before it!
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/12/04/220038/v-22-mishap-probe-prompts-us-fleet-restrictions.html
V-22 mishap probe prompts US fleet restrictions
By Stephen Trimble
Believing a design defect aboard the Bell-Boeing V-22 is likely to blame for a second in-flight engine fire, the US Navy has placed a flight restriction on the US domestic Osprey fleet and ordered the contractor to rush deliveries of a modification kit.
The flaw, however, will eventually require a permanent design fix, which will heap additional cost on the V-22 programme.
Investigators of a 6 November MV-22 mishap in North Carolina believe a nacelle fire that forced the crew to make an emergency landing was caused by known problems with the engine air particle separator (EAPS).
“There was enough initial indication that this incident may have been caused by EAPS,” says a US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) spokesman.
The preliminary finding means the domestic V-22 fleet will not be allowed to operate with the EAPS installed, he adds. Bell Boeing must deliver and install an EAPS modification kit before each aircraft can be cleared for normal flight status.
The restriction does not affect the 10 US Marine Corps MV-22s deployed to Iraq, as each of the aircraft is already equipped with the modification.
Without the EAPS on board, the domestic fleet’s stock of engines will suffer greater wear than normal while operating under the flight restriction.
The EAPS is a blower that keeps out dust, sand and other potentially damaging particles. But a defect in the blower sometimes causes it to jam. The sudden stop sends a jolt through the number-three hydraulics line that powers the blower. Eventually, the jolts weaken the hydraulics tube and cause it to leak.
The super-heated fluid is channeled out of the nacelle, but its course runs directly into the infrared suppressor, which is the source the engine fires.
A Bell Boeing spokesman says it has no estimate on the timing for completing deliveries of the modification kit. However, FlightGlobal.com understands that the navy expects the repairs to be finished by the end of February
V-22 mishap probe prompts US fleet restrictions
By Stephen Trimble
Believing a design defect aboard the Bell-Boeing V-22 is likely to blame for a second in-flight engine fire, the US Navy has placed a flight restriction on the US domestic Osprey fleet and ordered the contractor to rush deliveries of a modification kit.
The flaw, however, will eventually require a permanent design fix, which will heap additional cost on the V-22 programme.
Investigators of a 6 November MV-22 mishap in North Carolina believe a nacelle fire that forced the crew to make an emergency landing was caused by known problems with the engine air particle separator (EAPS).
“There was enough initial indication that this incident may have been caused by EAPS,” says a US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) spokesman.
The preliminary finding means the domestic V-22 fleet will not be allowed to operate with the EAPS installed, he adds. Bell Boeing must deliver and install an EAPS modification kit before each aircraft can be cleared for normal flight status.
The restriction does not affect the 10 US Marine Corps MV-22s deployed to Iraq, as each of the aircraft is already equipped with the modification.
Without the EAPS on board, the domestic fleet’s stock of engines will suffer greater wear than normal while operating under the flight restriction.
The EAPS is a blower that keeps out dust, sand and other potentially damaging particles. But a defect in the blower sometimes causes it to jam. The sudden stop sends a jolt through the number-three hydraulics line that powers the blower. Eventually, the jolts weaken the hydraulics tube and cause it to leak.
The super-heated fluid is channeled out of the nacelle, but its course runs directly into the infrared suppressor, which is the source the engine fires.
A Bell Boeing spokesman says it has no estimate on the timing for completing deliveries of the modification kit. However, FlightGlobal.com understands that the navy expects the repairs to be finished by the end of February
