Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

V22 Osprey discussion thread Mk II

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

V22 Osprey discussion thread Mk II

Old 30th Jun 2014, 14:03
  #521 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,340
21st Century, that hyperbole in that article overlooks some of the fiscal realities of requirements versus capabilities.

I invite you to take a look at V-280 Valor as a rational follow on to Osprey, presuming a few of the significant technical challenges of making the motor/rotor interface are overcome.

I think it takes the V-22 idea and improves upon it, with what one hopes is a lower case of sticker shock for an prospective buyer. If nobody can afford your aircraft, it isn't "the future" of much of anything.

In other Osprey "news" this article caught my eye.

Marine MV-22 Ospreys Showcase New Weapon System | AirWingMedia.com

Looks like they've been working on arming Osprey for a few years, and have come up with a usable kit.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2014, 14:42
  #522 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Lone,

As compared to normal door guns that belly mounted gun does have more than a few limitations. Acquiring and maintaining the Target will be difficult, engaging two or more targets will be very difficult especially if they are on opposite sides of the aircraft, and it will be totally useless while the aircraft is on the ground.

Other than that it is a remarkable piece of kit.

Let's face it, the Osprey just isn't a good Gun Platform.
Boudreaux Bob is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2014, 15:12
  #523 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 750
That aricle on the belly gun is nearly 2 years old. IIRC correctly it is not being used much. Weighs quite a bit, tkaes up cabin room and has the limitations that B Bob mentions.

The orginal plan was to have a nose mounted gun, but was deemed to disrupt the center of gravity too much, especially as the 22 was already nose heavy even without a gun. When the contract was signed the gun was to be integrated later in the program. Perhaps a bit of overselling....

Meanwhile the manually aimed ramp gun is the main weapon. This has limits on field of fire and interferes some what with troops and cargo going in/out the ramp. Starboard crew door deemed unsuitable as a mount would interfere too much with access and the crew chief monitoring operations from the open top of the door. Also near the arc of the prop rotors when they are in down "airplane" mode. No real window on the port side for a mount there.
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2014, 17:22
  #524 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Well, the CV-22 is supposedly getting a new forward-facing gun:

SOCOM soon getting more capable, deadlier Ospreys and C-130s
Defense News May. 22, 2014
Plans briefed to industry at the annual SOFIC conference include adding a forward-facing gun and better armor to its 50 CV-22 Ospreys... SOCOM leadership is working on beefing up the firepower on the aircraft, testing new forward-firing weapons that it wants to put in place by the end of this year... The gun program “is something that if we went to big Air Force or big Navy acquisitions it would have been a five-year program,” said [the CV-22 program director], but since the command is doing the research and development itself, “companies are looking to put a capability on this aircraft and shoot it by the end of this year.”
In other Osprey related news, there were some fascinating usage stats presented during AHS Forum 70 last month. The V-22's operating time stats break down as follows:
  • Airplane mode:.........43% (original design assumption = 69%)
  • Helicopter mode:......17% (original design assumption = 30%)
  • On ground/on deck:..40% (original design assumption = 1%)
Of that 40% operating time OTG/OTD, 32% is rotors turning (i.e. with 8% rotors static). Could this explain why the V-22's engine erosion has been so bad, necessitating a continuous flow of low power repair and spare engine contract awards to R-R Indianapolis? Recirculation of air around the V-22's proprotors during operations in the sandpit can't be good for its donks.

(Thanks to PPRuNers Tango & Cash for the AHS info)

I/C
Ian Corrigible is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2014, 23:51
  #525 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 809
Hi Ian

Can you clarify the On ground on deck time, I'm presuming thats a down time, in so much as they wanted it, but was not available?
rh200 is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2014, 00:23
  #526 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
rh200,

No, that's the remarkable thing: that 'on the ground' percentage is all tach time. I'm guessing it's associated with the aircraft's CONOPS (either that, or the aircraft has one hell of a pre-flight). Hopefully McPave or one of the other Osprey jocks on here will be able to shed some light on the numbers.

I/C
Ian Corrigible is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2014, 23:11
  #527 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 546
Apparently no one can do math on this forum.

The Osprey carries 5 times more than the 46 it replaced so longer times to load. It gets where their going twice as fast and then takes a little bit longer than a 46 to unload (easier going downhill). So if you allow a conservative multiplier of 3 in efficiency the equivalent ground time relative to helicopters based upon productivity is 13%.

The Sultan
The Sultan is online now  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 03:11
  #528 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Sultan,

Thanks for the lesson in Math 1.01, but that doesn't explain it.

Look at the second set of figures in brackets - those are the original PMO/Bell-Boeing estimates. So by your logic, unless the V-22 is flying significantly faster than originally predicted or carrying a significantly higher payload, there's something else going on here.

I still suspect part of the answer is in the way the Osprey is being utilized in-theater. It could be something as simple as average mission duration being lower than originally projected, due to a reliance on flights from 'friendly' airbases in the 'Stans (as opposed to an original Cold War scenario of operations from LHDs based in the Sea of Japan).

I/C
Ian Corrigible is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 15:53
  #529 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Yes, only Sultan has the ability to figure this stuff out. All bow down to Sultan the Wise!
Boudreaux Bob is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2014, 16:06
  #530 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 750
No the unload/load times can not account for that much time. It does not take than long to get a few grunts or pallets on/off. Agree that how it has been used is likely the cause. The MV-22 was sold as a game changing design that would speed troops to far ranging fields. Perhaps it is being used more as a regular trash hauler (just like the 46) than envisioned, where speed is not that important.

IIRC correctly the MV-22 uses a different scale than previous rotor craft- largely to show less down time, or maint. hours per hour. Perhaps this "Osprey math" is part of the problem.

All rotor craft spend a good amout of time turning on the deck. The 1% figure seems way low if that was part of the original goal.

The amount of time in rotor mode is interesting. Less dash time than figured.
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2014, 10:33
  #531 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
I invite you to take a look at V-280 Valor as a rational follow on to Osprey...I think it takes the V-22 idea and improves upon it...
That will likely be true, although it will not be a "V-22 replacement." Bell calls the V-280 a "3rd generation tiltrotor" following the V-22 as the 1st and 609 which is to be the 2nd. I'm sure there will be significant advances.
21stCentury is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2014, 10:42
  #532 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Ready or not, Japan wants to buy the Pentagon’s controversial Osprey aircraft

By Dan Lamothe July 11 at 4:43 PM

Gen. John M. Paxton Jr., assistant commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, and Kenichiro Sasae, Japanese ambassador to the United States, watch outside the Pentagon on Thursday as Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera departs in a Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey. (Cpl. Tia Dufour/U.S. Marine Corps)
Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera arrived at the Pentagon on Thursday in a gleaming MV-22 Osprey, the revolutionary, though controversial, tilt-rotor aircraft that can take off like a helicopter but fly like an airplane.
The point was plain — and plane. If I’m riding in it, Onodera seemed to say, it’s safe.
The visual was relevant because Japan wants to buy the aircraft as it expands its military in the face of a rising China. Japanese officials said Thursday that they would budget money to buy them in the fiscal 2015 budget. By 2018, Tokyo wants 17 of them, offering them more speed and range than traditional helicopters.
The Osprey’s history of deadly crashes has complicated matters in Japan, however. The Marine Corps first deployed the aircraft there in 2012 amid protests by tens of thousands of people, and concerns remain. Even a six-inch-long metal rod falling off an Osprey into the ocean near Okinawa and doing no harm in June received media attention, given the circumstances.
The Osprey purchases did not come up during a news conference Friday at the Pentagon with Onodera and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. But it’s part of a broader shift in Japanese defense strategy toward “collective self-defense” after decades of “internal self-defense.” In addition to the Ospreys, Japan plans to buy at least 42 F-35A Joint Strike Fighter jets to replace its decades-old F-4EJ Kai Phantoms, several Global Hawk surveillance drones and other equipment.
It’s the Ospreys, though, that seem to get the bulk of the attention. And that’s in part because of Japan’s history with other American aircraft. Many are still upset by an Aug. 13, 2004, CH-53D helicopter crash on an occupied building at Okinawa International University in which U.S. Marines cordoned off Japanese authorities for seven days. No civilians were injured in the crash, but rallies against U.S. aviation have continued there ever since, including a “die-in” protest last summer on its ninth anniversary.


The Osprey, meanwhile, has become a common sight in the U.S. military. It was deployed to Iraq from 2007 to 2009, and has been in Afghanistan since. It also has been added to President Obama’s fleet of aircraft, Marine Corps Helicopter Squadron One, although it is used to fly support missions, not the president.


Marine One, carrying President Obama, is seen flying above an MV-22 Osprey aircraft as it approaches to land on a heliport in New York on June 17. Marine Corps Helicopter Squadron One, the president’s helicopter fleet, adopted green versions of the Osprey last year to perform support missions. (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)
Air Force Special Operations Command also flies a variant of the Osprey, the CV-22, and the Navy signed a $6.5 billion deal in June with the Osprey’s makers, Textron Inc.’s Bell Helicopter and Boeing Co., to buy 99 of the aircraft.



Ready or not, Japan wants to buy the Pentagon?s controversial Osprey aircraft - The Washington Post
21stCentury is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2014, 14:54
  #533 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 603
Well I'm convinced. Until the Osprey cures cancer, it will never shake the "controversial" tag in the modern media, regardless of how far into history its teething (now decade old) problems fall.
SansAnhedral is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2014, 15:24
  #534 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,340
What isn't controversial about Osprey is the the Marines have met the mission, real combat mission, with it. The reason it was controversial in Japan has to do with Okinawa/Japan/US politics.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2014, 18:07
  #535 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 750
It has been said before "the Marines couldn't hold a bake sale on Okinawa without a protest..."

Interesting link regarding the Japanese Defense Minister taking an Osprey ride- hey if is good enough for the "first fog" it must be pretty good.

I can't help but think that a second Japanese F-35 batch buy will include a few "B's" and lol and behold, those new "destroyers" will go to sea with F-35's and Ospreys eventually.
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2014, 23:39
  #536 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 809
I'll state from the outset that I'm an Osprey lover.

It suffers from all the issues you would expect from a first generation production system that is radicaly different. It was never goiing to be as efficient as the theory and business case stated.

That said, if you see a long term advantage to something, and can solve the basics, then the only real way to shake out all the bugs and get real world experience is by deployment.

What the Osprey really does, is just the start of a potentially long term development of this type of system. It has broken the ground, and all future systems will be built with the blood sweat and tears, that have gone into it as lessons.

Rotary and fixed wing aircraft have had then benefit of decades, and the massive R&D associated with wars etc. to help them evolve. As technology evolves, so will the tilt rotor concept and abilities, unless a fundamental concept problem raises its ugly head. It is by and large early days.
rh200 is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2014, 00:21
  #537 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,540
At the risk of incurring FH's ire, I'm venturing over from the Mil Aircrew section to post this (I wanted to get it on the record somewhere on the forum, and they said it should go here, which is logical).

The first was a post I made on Key Publishing's Modern Military Aviation discussion board on 28 November 2012:
And the USMC has 11 operational squadrons flying MV-22B/Cs, as well as the MV-22B/CV-22B training squadron (a USMC squadron, but trains the USAF pilots as well)!

As of January 2012, the USMC had 97 MV-22B/Cs on inventory, and the USAF had 13 CV-22Bs in 3 Special Ops squadrons.


So those accidents are spread over a decent number of aircraft.

The production schedule shows 39 MV-22Cs/CV-22Cs are to be delivered to the USMC & USAF this year.

CV-22B Osprey - Standard air force production variant with ramp gun
MV-22B Osprey - Standard naval production variant with ramp gun
CV-22C Osprey - Upgrade program with nose gun pod, avionics upgrade, and countermeasures upgrade for CV-22B
MV-22C Osprey - Upgrade program with nose gun pod, avionics upgrade, and countermeasures upgrade for MV-22B
The MV-22C also features "improved software and cabin temperature controls".


There are only 6 operational and one training CH-46 squadrons left in the USMC.
Note that the "increased armament Osprey" was in development long before the March 2014 incident.


I posted this on the Warships1 discussion board's Aircraft Carriers section on 11 August 2013 in response to discussion of the deployment of USS Boxer LPH-4 with a USMC MV-22 squadron:
USN LHDs have been deploying with MV-22s since October 2007 when they headed to Iraq/Afghanistan aboard USS Wasp (LHD 1).

Boxer's deployment is simply the first aboard a West Coast based LHD.

In Feb. this year MV-22s made their first deployment aboard USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6), which is based in Sasebo, Japan.


Also note that the USMC is down to 5 active and 1 training CH-46 squadrons, but are up to 12 active and 1 training MV-22 squadrons... so the lack of CH-46s is no surprise.
And then on 15 December 2013 I posted this on the Warships1 discussion board's Air Forces section in response to discussion of Japan placing the MV-22 in its 5-year Mid-Term Defense Program:
Ummm... the USMC already has transitioned most of its CH-46 squadrons to MV-22s* - so I'm sure Okinawa has already experienced the Osprey (since there are two USMC MV-22 squadrons based on Okinawa at MCAS Futenma)!


*Current list:
CH-46: HMM-268, HMM-364, HMMT-164 (training) (all Camp Pendleton, Ca); HMM-774 (reserve, NS Norfolk, Va).

MV-22: VMM-161, VMM-163, VMM-165, VMM-166, VMM-363 (all MCAS Miramar, Ca); VMM-261, VMM-263, VMM-264, VMM-266, VMM-365, VMMT-204 (training) (all MCAS New River, NC); VMM-262, VMM-265 (both MCAS Futenma, Japan); VMM-764 (Reserve, Edwards AFB, Ca); VMX-2 (test & development, MCAS New River, NC)

CH-46 - 3+1; MV-22 - 12/1/1/1
Changes to the above list are as follows:
HMM-268: In October 2013 the squadron relocated to MCAS Miramar and was assigned to Marine Aircraft Group 16. On April 10th, 2014 the squadron was re-designated as Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 268 (VMM-268).

HMM-774: 10 Feb, 14 -The Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 774 (HMM-774), stationed out of Norfolk, Va., is currently in the process of retiring their CH-46E Sea Knight transport helicopters, whose service spans 50 years, while transitioning to the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft.

HMM-364: Report on HMMT-164's facebook page from 21 July 2014 has HMM-364 turning in two of its aircraft to HMMT-164 without replacement - indicating that the last operational USMC CH-46 squadron has begun the process of transitioning to the MV-22B!


So the standings now look like this:

CH-46: HMM-364 [in transition], HMMT-164 (training) (both Camp Pendleton, Ca).

MV-22: VMM-161, VMM-163, VMM-165, VMM-166, VMM-268, VMM-363 (all MCAS Miramar, Ca); VMM-261, VMM-263, VMM-264, VMM-266, VMM-365, VMMT-204 (training) (all MCAS New River, NC); VMM-262, VMM-265 (both MCAS Futenma, Japan); VMM-764 (Reserve, Edwards AFB, Ca); HMM-774 (reserve, NS Norfolk, Va)[in transition]; VMX-2 (test & development, MCAS New River, NC)

CH-46 - 1+1; MV-22 - 13/2/1/1

Jon A., Sgt USMC 1981-1989, A-6E Intruder avionics maintainer (IMA)
GreenKnight121 is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2014, 10:00
  #538 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Here's How US Marines Evacuate An Embassy In A Hostile Country

David M Brooks Yesterday at 9:59 AM Bookmark 8
The U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Libya was evacuated on Saturday in response to intense insurgent fighting, according to the State Department.
A Marine quick reaction force lead the evacuation with assistance from two USMC MV-22 Ospreys, three Air Force F-16 fighter jets, and an undisclosed number of surveillance drones, according to the Military Times.
In situations like these, the Marine Corps is trusted to quickly respond to hostile situations, and countless hours of training have made it more than capable. In response to crises, Marines are expected to be able to execute these types of missions within six hours.
78 evacuees were transported to the nearby country of Tunisia by a group of 80 Marines, according to the Military Times. All in all, the evacuation took five hours.
The Pentagon released some photos of the Marine crisis reaction force out of Sigonella, Italy which was tasked with evacuating the embassy in Tripoli. We paired these with other photos from a training video to show you how these operations are supposed to go down.
This MV-22 Osprey prepares to take off in support of the Tripoli embassy evacuation. Ospreys function as both a transport plane and a tilt-rotor aircraft. This provides the Marine Corps with the capability to tactically insert Marines into multiple environments while covering more distance than traditional helicopters.

Marines board the aircraft with their gear and weapons in anticipation of the operation. The wide cargo area allows the Osprey to transport a large amount of gear as well as Marines.

The green lights allow others to see the rotors of the Osprey during takeoff and landing and are an essential part of operating during nighttime conditions.

Once inside, Marines cram in and sit prepared in anticipation of the embassy evacuation.

The Marines fly in using the long transport capabilities of the Osprey.

At the embassy, Marines fast-rope out of the Osprey onto the roof to quickly provide defensive support and to locate and evacuate embassy personnel. Meanwhile, the Marine Security Guards stationed in the embassy protect the ambassador and secure or destroy classified materials.

Marines use smoke to conceal their movement and make sure to remove and secure the American flag immediately.

Once the Marines have located the embassy personnel, they quickly leave. A well-executed mission means providing security and getting in and out as quickly as possible.

Here you can watch the Marines explain how they conduct an embassy evacuation and their role as America’s emergency response force:
Please enable JavaScript to watch this video.
Here's How US Marines Evacuate An Embassy In A Hostile Country | Business Insider
21stCentury is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2014, 05:07
  #539 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Boots on the Ground in Iraq Again...

US moves Osprey troop transports to northern Iraq


By Jon Harper Stars and Stripes
Published: August 13, 2014



An MV-22 Osprey, assigned to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 161, launches from the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu while underway during Rim of the Pacific Exercise 2014.
Dustin Knight/U.S. Navy





WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has positioned MV-22 Osprey troop transports in northern Iraq amid speculation that American forces could be used to help evacuate people threatened by Islamic militants.


The Ospreys were used Tuesday to move 129 additional U.S. military personnel to the city of Irbil and they remain in the area, Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren told reporters on Wednesday.
“They’ll stay there until they’re no longer required,” Warren said.
Warren did not say how many Ospreys are there, but a defense official told Stars and Stripes that it’s “a small number.”
The new troop contingent in northern Iraq, which includes Marines and Army Special Forces, has been told to “assess the scope of the humanitarian mission and develop additional humanitarian assistance options beyond the current airdrop effort in support of displaced Iraqi civilians trapped on Sinjar Mountain by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,” according to a Defense Department statement.
“They will work closely with representatives from the U.S. Department of State and USAID to coordinate plans with international partners and nongovernment organizations committed to helping the Yazidi people,” DOD said.
The latest influx of troops brings the total number of U.S. servicemembers in northern Iraq to around 200.
On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said they’re not there to conduct “a combat-boots-on-the-ground operation.”
However, President Barack Obama has suggested that the international community should try to set up a safe passage corridor to help the Yazidis escape from ISIL, a militant group which refers to itself as the Islamic State.
The IS has threatened to kill the Yazidis, members of a minority religious sect, if they don’t convert to Islam. Some have been able to escape from Mount Sinjar in recent days as U.S. airstrikes have targeted the militants, but thousands more may still be trapped there.
On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the administration is considering launching a rescue operation using American military forces, citing unnamed U.S. officials.
The Osprey would be ideal for such a mission. The aircraft can take off and land vertically like a helicopter but fly fast like plane. It has been used extensively to insert special operations forces into hostile areas and also to conduct rescue operations.
According to Warren, the Islamic State does not possess anti-aircraft weapons that could shoot down high-flying jets, but they do have the ability to hit rotary-wing aircraft like the Osprey.
Warren declined to say whether the Obama administration is thinking about green-lighting such an operation.
“I’m not going to talk specifically about what we’re planning for the future, or what’s under consideration,” he said in response to a reporter’s question.
Warren would not provide information about where the Ospreys had been stationed before they were sent to northern Iraq, other than to say that they came from the U.S. Central Command area of operations. The Pentagon had earlier announced that the USS Bataan amphibious transport, now in the Persian Gulf, was carrying MV-22s and a large number of Marines.
In addition to the Ospreys, there are helicopters near Irbil as well, according to Warren. Warren did not provide information about the types or numbers of those assets.
Warren said the U.S. is using a secure airfield near Irbil that is being guarded by Kurdish forces.
The timing of a rescue, if it were to occur, is unclear. Defense officials have suggested that more information is needed before such an effort could take place.
“We’ll have to wait and see and get a better sense on the ground before we can offer some options to the president,” Lt. Gen. William Mayville Jr., director of operations for the Joint Staff, told reporters Monday.
Warren said there is no time line for the special operators to complete their assessments of the humanitarian situation and potential options to deal with it, but “time is of the essence.”
In the meantime, U.S. military planes continue to drop relief supplies to the Yazidis and bomb Islamic State forces.
“Our aircraft remain positioned to strike any terrorist forces around the mountain who threaten the safety of these families,” Obama said Monday at Martha’s Vineyard, Mass., where he and his family are vacationing this week.


US moves Osprey troop transports to northern Iraq - Middle East - Stripes
21stCentury is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2014, 07:20
  #540 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
AFSOC reveals details of aborted South Sudan rescue mission
Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
07 August 2014

A CV-22 seen taking on fuel from an MC-130 Combat Talon special mission Hercules aircraft. Three CV-22s survived heavy ground-fire in late 2013 during an aborted rescue mission of US citizens in South Sudan. Source: US Air Force

The US Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) has disclosed details of a rescue mission in South Sudan that saw three of its Bell-Boeing CV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft hit by ground fire more than 100 times and survive.
The CV-22s from the 8th Special Operations Squadron (SOS) were engaged in an evacuation of US citizens from the remote city of Bor, South Sudan, in late 2013 when they came under sustained ground fire from heavy machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and small arms fire, the command disclosed on 30 July.
According to the account, the three aircraft had flown 790 n miles through three countries to arrive at the United Nations (UN) compound in Bor in the early hours of 21 December 2013. Once over the compound where the evacuees were located, the CV-22s made a brief reconnaissance overflight before making their turn into their final approach.
It was at this time, the AFSOC said, that the formation was fired on, with 119 hits to the aircraft causing multiple system failures on each of the three Ospreys and wounding four special forces personnel. At the time it was reported that the ground fire may have come from South Sudanese Army defectors, and that a UN helicopter had been shot down in the same area just the day before.
With the CV-22s severely damaged the rescue mission was aborted, and the aircraft immediately exited the danger area. The flight controls, fuel, and hydraulic systems were damaged on all three aircraft, and the formation had to co-ordinate in-flight refuelling hook-ups in order to make the 480 n miles to Entebbe in Uganda, where the injured personnel received medical treatment.
The AFSOC crewmembers' achievements during this flight earned them the 2013 Mackay Trophy, which is given by the US Air Force (USAF) to the most meritorious flight of the year.
The CV-22 took on the USAF's combat search-and-rescue (CSAR) role from the now-retired Sikorsky MH-53 Pave Low helicopter, having entered service in 2006. Speaking to IHS Jane's during a visit to the 1st Special Operations Wing (SOW) at Hurlbert Field in Florida in 2013, Major Fernandez Zapata, a CV-22 pilot with the 8th SOS, spelled out the improved capabilities that the CV-22 affords, saying that its ability to fly at fixed-wing speeds and over fixed-wing distances, but having the flexibility of a helicopter when it gets to where it's going, is a real game changer.
Prior to this operation, the US Marine Corps (USMC) had shown the value of the Osprey as a CSAR platform, when two MV-22s operating from the USS Kearsarge (LHD-3) in the Mediterranean rescued the two-man crew of a crashed USAF Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle during the early stages of the no-fly campaign over Libya in 2011.
The USAF has so far received 33 of its 50 CV-22s, while the USMC has a programme-of-record of 360 MV-22s, of which about 170 have been delivered. The US Navy also has 50 MV-22s under option, although it has not yet taken this up.
AFSOC reveals details of aborted South Sudan rescue mission - IHS Jane's 360

Last edited by 21stCentury; 18th Aug 2014 at 08:21.
21stCentury is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.