Says here we were all wrong about the V-22 !
 

Jetpod Air Taxi Prototype's Crash Claims Inventor's Life

A British inventor died during a test flight of his "Jetpod" meant to revolutionize city commutes
By Jeremy Hsu Posted 08.17.2009 at 12:45 pm 0 Comments

http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecac...les/jetpod.png Jetpod's Dream Unfulfilled: Can a British inventor's dream outlive him? Avcen

Michael Robert Dacre, a 53-year-old aircraft entrepreneur, died when his Jetpod--a prototype "air taxi" twin-jet aircraft --crashed on take-off during a test flight in Malaysia. Dacre had hoped to revolutionize city commuting with the jetpod, an aircraft he invented with the ability to take off or land on very short stretches of road or grass for short-hop commuting.
The very quiet short take-off and landing (VQSTOL) aircraft used both horizontal and vertical thrust to get airborne in just 125 meters (410 ft), with the ability to reconfigure quickly into a jet capable of cruising at 310 mph. The Times reports that Dacre had been developing the concept with his UK-based company Avcen as a possible commuting alternative that might have charged £40 (65 USD) for a quick flight from Heathrow Airport to Central London.

Malaysian officials say that the Jetpod reached a height of about 200 meters (656 ft) before plummeting to the ground, where it was engulfed in flames, according to The Guardian.


Inventors and companies reaching for the dream of VQSTOL or vertical-takeoff-and-landing (VTOL) aircraft have met with their share of past troubles. The U.S. Marines' and Air Force's tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey managed to overcome a checkered developmental history and three fatal test-flight crashes to become the transport workhorse for U.S. Marines.
We've previously covered other tilt-rotor aircraft that typically used propellers rather than jet engines to achieve helicopter-like mobility. Such ventures have ranged from personal aircraft to the AeroTrain commercial plane concept.
Speculation on the cause behind the Jetpod's tragic crash remains difficult while the Malaysian Department of Civil Aviation investigates the possible causes.
[Times London, Guardian]

Dan,

I'm probably a bit out of date as I went through flight school 40 years ago, but assuming things haven't changed that much the system is not quite the way you think.

Everyone started off flying the same aircraft, in my case the T34. After that program and six weeks of strictly ground school, everyone made their selection on what they wanted to fly. Pretty much everyone chose jets over helicopters. Selection was made by grades and, above all, needs of the service at that moment. In my bunch a few went jets, but most of us ended up in the helicopter pipeline.

It wasn't 3 or 4 months later that everything changed and word came down that anyone who wanted jets could head to NAS Meridian. Surprisingly, only a couple took the offer, the rest of us had been around our second tour instuctor pilots to know that if you wanted to fly, helicopters was the way to go.

In jets you were lucky to get 20 hours a month, in helicopters 40 to 60 hours a month were pretty common. In fact, at one point those jet jocks who graduated flight school and reported to the RAG (replacement air group) at Cherry Point found themselves with a year wait as the training was horribly backlogged. Word went out once again that any jet jocks that wanted to start flying, there was a need at New River as a number of helicopter squadrons were short handed.

And, after your first tour, those pilots that were regulars or on unlimited active duty, had the opportunity to get transitioned from helicopters to jets and vice versa.

So, in short, who flew what, depended on where the seats were.

jso0987

Thanks for the info! Those certainly must have been some memorable times!

From what I understand now, it's a whole new ballgame regarding who gets what to fly. I'm sure a number of factors include the complexity of the aircraft, weapons, costs and responsabilities of one guy being able to destroy acres of a city or more with a nuke makes it paramounnt that the candidate has the "Right Stuff"..

So only the proverbial 'brightest & best" get chosen these days for the fast fliers .

Yes, I knew of some enlisted types who flew helicopters who then were made WOs in the MC. Some went on to LDO but old man time caught up with most. These were colorful guys and always animated in every situation. CO's kinda/sorta put up with their antics but when the chips were down and they needed the very best to get an aircraft out of the swamp or off the beach before the next high tide, these were called upon. And yep, they could fly whatever was available to get them on a cross country if need be. They were picked for new aircraft development work at the manufacturers and at Pax and many were later hired by them when they got out as Field Service Reps but usually better for their leadership abilites (bigger $$ also).

So yes, the fighter pilots are the best. Wish I had been one. What they do routinely because of the first class training they get is indescribable. One key trait they all had and were tested for prior to selection as a fighter pilot was the ability to "Stay ahead of the machine" in each and every scenerio they would be tasked with. I recall the JAG report on the Tomcat female who crashed into the back of a carrier (?) at night which turned up the fact she wasn't all that good of a stick actuator and had not scored all that well on some of the advanced tests. She actually would have been passed over as a fighter pilot had she been a male. I don't need to tell you why she made the cut but will say her death caused the Navy to never again trade political favors for lowered standards for ANYONE again.

I've sat many a night watching F-14 and F-18 launches and recoveries and ya gotta hand it to those guys and gals, they are the best and I envy each one even though I was a helo guy.

Nuff said ! I'm begining to geezer-out!

Dan,

A couple of points. Marines had enlisted pilots in WW2 and Korea, but the last two retired in the early 70's. They were Master Gunnery Sergeants flying T39's out of Cherry Point.

Unlike the Army, Warrant Officer pilots in the Marine Corps are (or were - its been a while) rare as hens teeth.

The only actual testing that was done to determine whether you qualified for flight school.

I have to chuckle about wanting those who could "stay ahead of the machine." A couple of the jet jocks that transfered to New River, not wanting to wait of the RAG, came with the attitude that they had 400 knot minds and helicopter pilots had 40 knot minds. (Well doctrinated Air Force trained pilots) After a couple of embarrassing incidents, they quickly learned.

Also remember a funny story from a Captain who had flown Hueys in Viet Nam and went through the jet transition course at NAS Meridian. His instructor pilot asked him one day if he would like to do some low level flying. The instructor took him down to several hundred feet above the trees and asked what he thought. The Captain replied that he would like to try it and the instructor gave him the controls. Low level - you want to see low level. Next thing the instructor sees is his T2 at the tree tops. Careful for what you ask for.

With um..lifting's post I am heartened that the view of helicopters versus jets has changed. Perhaps I saw the genesis of that change back in 74. I was sent to PAX River along with other Navy and Marine pilots that had shipboard experience. The Navy Captain that chaired the meeting, started off by saying that, for the first time, he actually had money in his budget to work on operational problems facing ships and helicopters and he wanted ideas. For 30 years, he said, the call over the 1MC had been "flight operations secure - land the helicopter."

js0987 Thanks for your comments.

A friend just back from VN sent this link. Perhaps some of you can remember the LZs and bases shown you may have flown out of.

htttp://www.usmcpress.com/heritage/currentvietnam/current50.htm

V-22 & CH-53K Slapdown.
 

Marines Struggle On High-Profile Programs

Aug 18, 2009

By Bettina H. Chavanne

http://www.aviationweek.com/media/im...K-Sikorsky.jpg A virtual gag order is in place by order of the U.S. Marine Corps deputy commandant of aviation, Lt. Gen. George Trautman, on two of the service’s biggest programs: the new CH-53K heavy-lift helicopter and the V-22 Osprey.
The Marines have clamped down on news about the CH-53K program since June, when cost overruns were announced by the program manager, Capt. Rick Muldoon, and confirmed by Trautman. The irony is that the construction of the heavy lifter is reportedly going well. Sikorsky recently announced the arrival of the first set of 8,500 supplier parts that will go into building the three-engine aircraft. And General Electric initiated the first bench tests of the GE38 turboshaft engine in July. Five ground-test engines will be used for more than 5,000 hr. of testing. Another 20 flight-test engines will be used on the CH-53K developmental aircraft. Seven prototype aircraft will be delivered during system design and development—four for engine development vehicles. The remaining three will serve as a dedicated ground-test vehicle, a static test article and a fatigue test platform.
The CH-53K will be the newest, beefiest and first fly-by-wire helicopter in the Marines’ arsenal when it flies in 2011. The concern is how far the cost overruns will push the first flight date and squadron fielding date, scheduled for 2015. And the Marines may not know themselves.
Sources tell Aviation Week that Trautman has ordered Muldoon to hold off on any further schedule or budget updates until the budget is complete on Capitol Hill. Trautman could not be reached for comment.
The pressure to ensure the program goes well increases as demand for the heavy lifting—and high-altitude—talents of the CH-53K increase in Afghanistan. Potential international buyers are tracking the program’s progress as well. France and Germany have expressed interest in the CH-53K for their heavy-lift requirements, and Muldoon says he expects inquiries from Turkey, Singapore, Taiwan and Israel (AW&ST June 22, p. 54).
The V-22 Osprey has faced its share of problems over the years, but after three deployments in Iraq and a squadron fielded on the USS Bataan, the Marines seemed to have conquered most doubts. At least until a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report detailing the aircraft’s shortcomings in reliability and maintainability came out in June, followed closely by a hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in which Chairman Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) declared, “It’s time to put the Osprey out of its misery.” What happened? Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee and a former U.S. Navy officer, claims a lack of transparency on the part of the Marines has angered lawmakers. Detailed after-action reports were made available after the aircraft’s first deployment, but information on the subsequent deployments has been far more difficult to elicit from the service. “The Marines should have come forward with the data and we’d have had fewer problems,” says Sestak (AW&ST July 6, p. 21). A review of the V-22 program was conducted in late July by officials in the Pentagon’s acquisition directorate, but any issues that may have arisen from that conversation have not been made public either.
Reliability and maintainability issues on the V-22 are getting some attention, however. On July 15, Naval Air Systems Command (Navair) in Patuxent River, Md., awarded the Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office a $24.5-million time-and-material contract for delivery of “safety correction actions, reliability and maintainability improvements and quick reaction capability improvements.” A $6-million contract also went to Northrop Grumman for configuration upgrades to the V-22’s infrared countermeasures.
This may do little to appease Towns, however, who has said he will go to the House Appropriations Committee with his own assessment of the program. In an atmosphere of increased belt tightening and a Defense Secretary who has little patience with what he sees as bloated or unnecessary programs, the Marines would do well to throw some light not only on what is happening with CH-53K and V-22, but what they’re going to do about it.
Image: Sikorsky

V22 is both good and bad.....
 

The Marines seem to love the V22, even with its shortcomings like high costs, high maintenance, low engine MTBR, limited payload capacity, and lack of an ECS and pressurized fuselage. These shortcomings are apparently outweighed by the speed and range that the V22 gives them versus a CH-47.

Frankly, most of the V22's problems were the result of design requirement changes piled on Bell-Boeing by the program office. Similar problems are also bogging down the F-35 program.

The next generation rotorcraft currently being studied by the DoD (ie. JHL/JFTL) may suffer from the same issues, and have the same problems, unless the program management (ie. the AFRL and AATD) learn from the V22's mistakes. An aircraft that tries to do everything well ends up doing nothing well. JHL started out as a 20 ton VTOL aircraft, and is now a 35 or 40 ton STOVL requirement. This means that tilt-rotors are now competing against heavy-lift fixed wing aircraft like the the C-17B.

Regardless, a pure VTOL, 300 knot, JFTL aircraft, that can operate at 40 KFT, with a 1500 mile range, combined with sea-basing, would completely revolutionize the way our Marines operate. An operational JFTL aircraft would mean that the US could close down most of our overseas bases.

A TD of JFTL could be built and flown for less than $500M, which is a fraction of the money Obama gave Bear-Stearns, AIG or GM. If only Congress showed some guts......

Did not the Allies try to supply an invasion force across the beach at Normandy one time instead of relying on Port facilities?

Nice thought but we will always need land based logistics bases....even the Navy uses sea ports.

Obama and Congress show some cojones.....now there's a pipe dream sure 'nuff!:rolleyes::ugh::=:{

Navy Times Says:"V-22 ideal in mountain outposts"
 

Helo shortage thorny issue surrounding QDR

By John T. Bennett - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Aug 22, 2009 11:43:42 EDT

An Army helicopter shortage and the positioning of expeditionary forces are two issues Pentagon officials are hotly debating as part of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, according to sources and documents.
Defense Department officials have entered the second phase of the quadrennial study: merging findings of the study’s analytic products with the services’ 2011 spending plans. Most of that work will be completed by Dec. 9, when Pentagon brass want to finalize a draft of the strategic study, according to a Pentagon planning document obtained by Military Times.
Among the myriad issues being examined as part of the QDR is the “balance of forward-stationed and expeditionary forces,” according to the Pentagon document, dated July 10. That effort is primarily examining the kinds of naval and air forces the military will need over next 20 years — and where they will need to be positioned around the globe.
Pentagon officials and defense observers said the naval- and air-focused expeditionary study is unlikely to spawn new overseas bases for U.S. ground forces.
Mackenzie Eaglen of the Heritage Foundation said that if the Obama administration is serious about training allied forces and “building partnership capacity” across the globe, the military “will need presence to do those things — and the Navy and Air Force are less infrastructure-dependent than having ground forces in these places.”
Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute said Donald Rumsfeld, defense secretary for six years under President George W. Bush, “proposed to drastically scale back the overseas stationing of U.S. forces, saying that the Cold War conditions requiring such presence had disappeared.
“The Obama administration clearly thinks Rumsfeld overdid it, and wants to keep more troops in places like Europe,” Thompson said. “That could be costly, though, so the outlook is for the Air Force and Navy to take the lead in providing forward presence.”
The expeditionary examination portion of the QDR is part of a broader effort to align future threats with equipment and basing needs. Pentagon officials have made clear the quadrennial review will usher in a force-planning construct that no longer is based on fighting two major wars simultaneously.
In June, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright said at a Washington forum that the QDR will examine what future threats the U.S. military will face and how that will affect how American forces and gear are based, pre-positioned and deployed.
Some defense analysts have predicted Pentagon brass will use the quadrennial study to gird U.S. naval and air forces for major combat operations, leaving irregular fights to the Army and Marine Corps. That would mean more money for certain Navy and Air Force weapons programs and for Army and Marine personnel, operations, and maintenance, they say.
HELO SHORTAGE

The QDR analysts are looking at “a shortage of rotary-wing capacity,” according to “Guidance for Development of the Force,” a Pentagon document issued in April that helped shape the quadrennial study.
Defense officials have alluded to such a shortfall in recent weeks but have stopped short of disclosing options under consideration to address it.
For instance, David Ochmanek, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for force transformation and resources, told reporters July 28 that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is “very aware of persistent shortfalls that have existed in the ability to support forces in disbursed operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
He then ticked off a list: “rotary-wing, lift, civil affairs, persistent ISR, and the exploitation and dissemination that goes with that, [and] intratheater lift.”
Ochmanek said getting those things to Iraq and Afghanistan will likely mean more than simply buying new ones and rushing them to war.
“Some of these things aren’t about technology so much as better management of the force, or a rebalancing of the force so that the things we can access readily are readily accessible,” he said. “Whether we move things from the reserve component into the active, or change the rules and procedures under which we access things in the reserve component.”
The former appears to be a leading option the Army is leaning toward to fill its part of the military’s active component helicopter shortfall.
The Pentagon planning document says within the Army, the rotary-wing QDR debate “is focused on converting a reserve component aviation brigade to the active component.”
The Army’s strategy, plans and policy directorate has directed the service’s aviation director to study “all options to generate greater capacity,” the document said.
Thompson said the rotary-wing deficit “seems to be concentrated in heavy lift, such as the Sikorsky CH-53s,” flown by the Marines. Other aviation analysts added the Army’s CH-47 to that list.
Moving military gear and personnel by air is more important in an austere environment like Afghanistan.
Thompson said the military cannot simply devote more fixed-wing cargo planes to that region because Afghanistan lacks an ample number of suitable landing strips.
“So in some places like mountain outposts, troops and supplies need to be moved mainly be helicopters,” Thompson said. “The combination of speed and vertical agility afforded by helicopters is well-suited to the kind of operating environment Afghanistan presents. The V-22 Osprey tiltrotor, made by Boeing and Bell Helicopter for the Air Force and Marine Corps, could be ideal, given the fact that it has greater reach than conventional rotorcraft.”
Others say the military has plenty of rotary-wing aircraft. So how to explain the shortfall?
A Pentagon source said that one reason is the military has more chopper pilots than available helos.
“The availability rations for combat aircraft are much more acceptable,” the source said.
Eaglen said another reason is that only one of every six military choppers are deployed; Pentagon planners prefer a 1:3 ratio, but many of the U.S.-based helicopters are assigned to reserve units, which deploy less often.
For that reason, she said it is likely DoD will continue seeking to convert reserve aviation brigades to the active force, as the planning document suggests.
Action is needed, and soon. That’s because, as Gates signaled with his 2010 Pentagon budget request, in which he added funds to helicopter-related coffers, Eaglen said: “The Pentagon has made it clear that it sees no end in sight for the heavy-lift requirement.”

More positive V-22 spin from government.
 

Osprey deployment a learning experience

By Philip Ewing - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Aug 22, 2009 10:22:43 EDT

ABOARD THE AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT SHIP BATAAN IN THE PERSIAN GULF — The crew of this gator and its Marine air wing have become the Navy’s premier experts at operating the MV-22 Osprey aboard ships, mostly by making it up as they go along.
“It’s always something new, different and unexpected,” said Cmdr. Dan Olson, the ship’s air boss. “We are constantly trying to figure out stuff we don’t have published guidance for, and we’re always writing notes, e-mails off to spread what we know.”
When the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group and the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit sailed in May, they became the first ARG and MEU to deploy with Ospreys only — and none of the Corps’ old-standby CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and his entourage climbed aboard one of Bataan’s 10 Ospreys on Aug. 7 in Kuwait to experience the rocket-ship liftoff and silky fixed-wing flight out to the underway Bataan.
Olson said the ships in the ARG have become good at working the Ospreys into air operations, but unexpected things still crop up.
“It can slow down operations, it’s cumbersome, it takes up more space on the flight deck than other aircraft,” he said.
Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 and the crew of the Bataan have added more safety observers to keep an eye on the Ospreys and the flight deck crew members who work under the cyclonic downwash from their massive rotors.
Managing Ospreys on Bataan is just one part of the challenge. The tiltrotors also must take off and land from the other ships in the ARG, both of which have much smaller flight decks than Bataan. Capt. Sara Faibisoff, an Osprey pilot with VMM-263, said the small-deck gators could accommodate two Ospreys comfortably.
“It’s not that bad at all,” she said. “You make a slow approach, put it down and there’s plenty of space.”
The main difference with landing on small-deck gators is the damage its engine exhaust does to flight decks. An Osprey’s twin nacelles blast heat downward when a V-22 is in helicopter mode. Crew members aboard the small-deck amphibs have taken to setting up metal pads, known as “hot plates,” underneath the nacelles while an Osprey’s engines are running on the flight deck.
“We touch down, they run them in, and then they take them away before we launch,” Faibisoff said.
The Osprey had many skeptics aboard this ship and in Iraq’s western Anbar province, where it deployed last year, because of the controversy surrounding the aircraft’s quarter-century of development, its high cost, and crashes that killed more than two dozen Marines.
“When we were first flying up there, people didn’t want to fly in them — they were scared,” Faibisoff said. “It takes getting used to.”

Watching this discussion is like listening to discussion about Health Care Reform...

If the V22 is so bad then why aren't we hearing the same diatribe from the Air Force? Or they just considered toys and therefore not to be taken serious? Seems the Air Force must be happy as we don't hear anyone complaining for them.

Chuck

Perhaps the Air Force mission suits the special abilities of the Osprey....and the Air Force has a slightly better approach to things aviation perhaps.

Maybe you have something maybe the AF want something with FW performance that can take off and land like a Helicopter.( A)
The Marine Corps want something with Helicopter Performance that can fly like a fixed wing.(B)

Perhaps the V22 does A better than B.

Keep in mind that given it's mission the AFSOC is going to be far less likely to comment on its equipment in public (whether good or bad). The Command will have also logged substantially less hours than the Corps and is likely to be less far along the experience curve (again wrt both pros & cons).

I/C

I don't think its that simple. If they are performing that badly and they were unhappy then the media would hype it up even more. Remember the F111's issues and C130 corroding spars? These are swoop and scoop operations and the same type of missions that all the naysayers currently point out about the USMC version. I would imagine that they are cheaper and lighter than the USMC version due to the fact they don't need wing fold and some of the other naval only req's. AFAIK, they don't have a gun and are subject to VRS same as the USMC and yet no shrill speeches being made either... Why isn't everyone that wants to kill the V22 not shouting the same for the USAF version? If its such a waste of taxpayers money why continue it too???

You've missed the point. It's mission makes AFSOC a much tighter-lipped outfit than the 'regular' forces, and thus less likely to engage in debate on their equipment, period.

It's actually the other way round: the CV-22's mission equipment makes it a much more expensive platform. I don't have the current figures to hand, but IIRC the difference is IRO $30M.

I/C

According to those at the 71st SOS who I flew with its basically the same airframe plus a few little bits added as per I/C's post.

Ned

How much weight could be "saved" if one does not need all the folding/twisting/turning parafernalia of the bird?

Let's say as a land based SAR aircraft you do not need armor, guns and folding wings .....

3top:cool:

Marines Are Satisfied With MV-22
Aviation Week ^| Sep 8, 2009 | Bettina H. Chavanne

Posted on Tuesday, September 08, 2009 5:05:43 PM by Yo-Yo

The U.S. Marine Corps is acting as the lead service on the Bell-Boeing MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor, with three deployments to Iraq under its belt and a squadron flying from the deck of the USS Bataan amphibious assault ship. Meanwhile, the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command (Afsoc) is growing its own fleet of CV-22s, steadily building hours and mission profiles.
The Marines have recently suffered critiques from Washington for cost and performance issues, most notably in a May Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that cited the aircraft’s “unresolved operational effectiveness and suitability issues.” But the service takes exception to several deficiencies in the report. “We worked with the GAO for months, showed them everything, and yet we still think that their report misses the mark,” says Lt. Gen. George Trautman, deputy commandant for Marine Corps aviation.
The report covers ground trodden by the program for more than two decades, listing problems Trautman says the service is addressing or has dealt with already. Support for the platform has not ebbed among certain lawmakers despite a June declaration from Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, that the aircraft should be “put out of its misery.” Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, traveled to Camp Lejeune, N.C., in August to seek what he called the “ground truth” behind claims made against the MV-22. “I’ve found that if you want to know the truth and understand the facts, it’s imperative that you get out into the field and speak one-on-one with those operating these systems,” says Murtha. “The Marines are very satisfied with the MV-22’s operations.”
The Afsoc fleet has not been subjected to similar scrutiny. While the Marines struggle to raise mission capability rates on the MV-22 from 62% in Iraq, Afsoc officials reported a 74.2% rate from an overseas deployment last year. Afsoc’s numbers are based on 93 sorties over 314 flight hours during the multinational Flintlock exercise in Africa last year. For this mission the entire logistics capability was focused almost solely on executing operational sorties there. The MV-22s have flown 55,000 hr. in three deployments in Iraq. Reliability and maintainability “are not meeting my full expectations yet,” says Trautman. Murtha notes as well that during his conversations with Marines about the MV-22, “the only concern they raised was the availability of spare parts, which is not uncommon for new systems.”
There have also been problems, for example, with the MV-22’s pitch-control bearings, which were designed to last for the life of the system but have begun to wear out, according to Col. Matt Mulhern, former MV-22 program manager. Also, difficulties in the operation of the engine air-particle separator (EAPS) are driving officials to look for an electric system to replace the hydraulic one. A direct correlation has been found between problems with the EAPS and engine wear and tear. In the short term, vanes fitted into the inlet are expected to better control the flow of air into the EAPS.
Program officials are also working on a fix for 85 wiring bundles in the engine nacelles. Dirt mixed with moisture was found to be chafing the wires’ coating and eventually the wires themselves.
Another issue is the soaring cost per flight hour of the MV-22s. The prediction for Fiscal 2009 was $5,362 per flying hour, yet the actual cost is 119% higher, $11,748, according to a May 18 memorandum for the House Armed Services seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee. One factor driving the spike is the cost to repair the aircraft—without a depot facility, the service is forced to buy new parts. Mulhern has said the cost per flying hour is expected to go down by 20% within the coming year.
Afsoc has gained some hands-on experience training and operating with the CV-22’s specialized systems, including the Suite of Integrated Radio Frequency Countermeasures (Sirfc) that deployed with the aircraft during Flintlock. This complex defensive system was for a long time a watch item for the program because of development challenges. However, Maj. Dale Linafelter, Afsoc’s CV-22 requirements officer, says the system has operated well and officials have used it in various electronic warfare tests and for training in the U.S.
“Sirfc has been a success,” he says. “Because of its complexity, it was a challenge not only for the designers and engineers, but for the air crews.”
For the Flintlock deployment, the CV-22 also included the M240 ramp-mounted gun. Afsoc is training its crews to use a 50-cal. ramp-mounted gun on the CV‑22 as well, both for its superior range and its coverage of the backside of the aircraft.
A belly-mounted defensive weapon being designed by BAE Systems is still in testing and is “something we hope to get our hands on this year,” says Linafelter. It is desirable for 360-deg. defensive coverage, he adds.
While Afsoc is continuing to train crews for the young CV-22 fleet, the pacing item for the program is actually aircraft deliveries, Linafelter says. Five aircraft are expected in Fiscal 2010 and in 2011, and eight in Fiscal 2012. “They are producing crews fast enough that an accelerated delivery schedule . . . is what we are looking for,” he says.
The Marines have been able to celebrate several MV-22 successes; the most notable may be the aircraft’s first ship-to-shore medical evacuation mission. On June 29, the service announced it had used two MV-22B Ospreys to rescue a sailor who had sustained head, hip and chest injuries after falling. As the aircraft were returning to the USS Bataan June 25 after a routine mission, the pilots were notified of the emergency situation. The aircraft landed on the ship, loaded up the patient and medical personnel and traveled 147 naut. mi. in 37 min. to a regional airport, where an ambulance transferred the sailor to a hospital for treatment.
While the Ospreys were deployed and touted for their abilities to move Marines safely and quickly into combat zones, rescue missions figure strongly in the aircraft’s development heritage. The Ospreys were designed with combat, search-and-rescue (CSAR) missions in mind, and the tiltrotor was considered a frontrunner early on in the Air Force’s now-canceled CSAR-X replacement fleet competition.
The tiltrotor was ultimately ruled out because it was deemed too expensive. But now that the Pentagon has ordered a review of the whole CSAR mission, the V-22 may just find itself back in the running.
The maintenance piece is also garnering some attention. On July 15, Naval Air Systems Command of Patuxent River, Md., awarded the Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office a $24.5-million time-and-materiel contract for delivery of “safety correction actions, reliability and maintainability improvements and quick reaction capability improvements.” A $6-million contract also went to Northrop Grumman for configuration upgrades to the MV-22’s infrared countermeasures.
A new Maintenance Training Facility at New River, N.C., has been established to help the Marines learn how to tackle maintenance issues. The plant is a 40,000-sq.-ft. classroom, complete with a 26,900-sq.-ft. bay that can accommodate up to four MV-22s. The facility includes a sophisticated simulation environment that lets future Osprey technicians puzzle out real-world problems at their own pace.
Just down the road, at the Fleet Readiness Center East (FRC-East) in Cherry Point, the Marines now perform their real depot work. They schedule depot maintenance based on the calendar versus flight hours. Col. David Smith, FRC-East commanding officer, says MV-22s will begin to arrive at the facility after they’ve been operational for 60 months. He estimates the center will handle nine of the tiltrotor aircraft in the next couple of years, which should take approximately 3,500 man-hours over 90 days. All eyes are on the Osprey’s impending deployment to Afghanistan. Demand for a flexible platform that can perform at high altitudes in hot temperatures is on the increase—and most helicopters cannot meet the requirements. The Marines have little doubt, though, that their tiltrotor is up to the task. “Afghanistan , especially with the dispersed nature of the forces in the south, is tailor-made for the Osprey,” says Trautman. “We see the Osprey contributing in a manner that no other aircraft can.”

Oh maaaan, the V-22 bull just keeps on coming! Proponents will say anything to justify the aircraft, spinning every little detail in the most positive light, even if it makes no sense at all. Do they think we're stupid? Wait- I'll answer that: Yes, they must think we are.
...But only until the V-22 comes to a hover, because the gun must be retracted before the ship can land. Good plan!
The first six prototype V-22s flew in 1989. Manufacturing of the V-22 began in 1999. Operational evaluations continued through 2005, and it's been in service ever since. When does an aircraft stop being referred to as "young?" Or, more correctly, when do we stop using "young" as an excuse for this aircraft?
Ah yes, the famous ship-to-shore V-22 medevac from the Bataan to...wait...to an airport? Ohhhh, that's right, the mighty Osprey can't land at hospitals because the rotorwash would send Toyota Priuses in nearby parking lots scattering like toys.

What they're cleverly not including is how much time it took for the injured sailor to get from the regional airport to the hospital. Let's say it was 20 minutes from the time the Osprey touched down until arrival at the E.R. Say one-hour total time. Why, that's only an average block speed of 147 knots! And this...is...umm, how much better than a helicopter?

Yes, but you're missing the point, Bob. The POINT is that the Osprey accomplished a medevac! It did it! Nobody knew that this AIRCRAFT could take somebody on a stretcher from here to there, and it did! What does it matter that the total time en route for the injured person wasn't any quicker than if they'd used a helicopter? Why do you have to be so cynical and negative all the time? Are you a moron? The amazing Osprey did a medevac!!!

Perhaps I am a moron. Or maybe just immune to the effects of the Osprey Kool-Aid everyone else seems to be drinking and feeling.

And finally...
CSAR. Heh. That's a laugh. Has ANYBODY seen a photograph of a V-22 hoisting ANYTHING? I have not. And I'd love to stand corrected on this. We keep hearing about how the V-22 is undergoing hoisting "trials" and stuff, but I have never seen ONE photograph of a person on a stretcher being hoisted into a V-22. Why is that?

Perhaps it's because in a conventional helicopter the hoist is right under the MR grips, and in the V-22 the hoist is right under the MR tips. What kind of airflow is there at the tips and how does it effect hoisting operations? Oh, I'd love to see that! Again, correct me if I'm wrong because CSAR is one area where the tiltrotor might actually do well. If it can do it at all.

The more I see of the V-22 in real-world operations, the more convinced I am that it does not do anything so much better than a conventional helicopter that it justifies the enormous burden on U.S. taxpayers.

Errrrrr....uhhhhhhh......not Hoist certified in 2009?

Now if it cannot perform that mission......am I wrong in thinking that might be the very straw we read about when discussing camel spines?

The hoist on the CV22 is built into the ceiling above the end of the ramp and swings out of the way when not in use.

Ned

Gonna get a bit crowded back on that ramp iddnit....M-2 Browning .50 Cal....a gunner...winch operator...and winchman...a casualty on a stretcher???

Ah...I forget...one swings the only Machine gun aside while doing winching.....in a hostile area with bad guys all around....now that is good thinking!

http://www.targetlock.org.uk/osprey/vmm-263-iraq-2.jpg

How does the CH-53E, MH-53 do that job?

Isn't it two door guns (Starboard side gun has to be swung aside)and a ramp gun while winching?

But then I forget.....tactics have changed since Vietnam....they always go where the bad guys aren't now days.

Oh SAS, as big a cynic and skeptic of the V-22 as I am, I do not envision the ship carrying out hoisting operations in hostile areas. I was thinking more along the lines of CSAR. I assumed that the hoist would be positioned at the right-hand forward cabin door, but obviously that is wrong if as Ned sez, it is accessed via the ramp. But...come to think of it, neither *pilot* will be able to see the load/patient. They will have to rely on the crewman for positioning - which I would have to guess isn't all that big a deal. But then, wouldn't the winch operator have to lean out beyond the ramp? How's that work?

Also, having the hoist extend out the ramp would *seem* to be a better place with regard to rotorwash impingement.

But still...

We've all seen videos of dangling stretchers rotating under the hoist for various reasons. And so I wonder how a stretcher would behave under the swirling rotorwash of the twin proprotors?

I suspect that hoisting work is something for which the V-22 is not the optimal platform. I suspect that they are still working out the procedures and details.

Ospreys might have saved these 4 Marines.
 

'We're pinned down'
4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush
By Jonathan S. Landay | McClatchy Newspapers
GANJGAL, Afghanistan — We walked into a trap, a killing zone of relentless gunfire and rocket barrages from Afghan insurgents hidden in the mountainsides and in a fortress-like village where women and children were replenishing their ammunition.
"We will do to you what we did to the Russians," the insurgent's leader boasted over the radio, referring to the failure of Soviet troops to capture Ganjgal during the 1979-89 Soviet occupation.
Dashing from boulder to boulder, diving into trenches and ducking behind stone walls as the insurgents maneuvered to outflank us, we waited more than an hour for U.S. helicopters to arrive, despite earlier assurances that air cover would be five minutes away.
U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village.
"We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We've lost today," Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter's repeated demands for helicopters.
Four U.S. Marines were killed Tuesday, the most U.S. service members assigned as trainers to the Afghan National Army to be lost in a single incident since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. Eight Afghan troops and police and the Marine commander's Afghan interpreter also died in the ambush and the subsequent battle that raged from dawn until 2 p.m. around this remote hamlet in eastern Kunar province, close to the Pakistan border
Read more: 'We're pinned down:' 4 U.S. Marines die in Afghan ambush | McClatchy

"We're Pinned Down"

If you were in RVN, Army or Marine and you heard "We're Pinned Down"
you knew that rain or shine, night or day 'they were coming' to help. Didn't matter if they were slicks, gun ships or cargo haulers, 'they were coming'.

Fast forward 4 decades with incredible advances in helicopter capabilities and technologies and 4 Marines die because there's no one, no helicopter to answer their call for help.

These 4 dead Marines should have had a better chance at survival had Marine leadership during those 40 years done the right thing. I fear those 4 Marines deaths can be blamed on poor leadership, greed and incompetence. I know about woulda/coulda/shoulda but this is plain wrong! IMO

That's a stretch.

I presume they were calling for attack helicopters, not troop lift.

It sounds like the artillery would have been a better first response.

The rules of engagement need revision.

Time for the Lads and Lasses to come home.....this "Don't Shoot Back Saloon" business is only going to get our folks killed, wounded, and maimed.:mad:

I don't care who is running the show....if the particpants on one side are restricted from using both hands in the ring....that only makes it into a losing fight. Being fresh back from a visit to the Vietnam Memorial yesterday reminds me of just how costly such a mindset can be!:(

I agree SASless. If we are to fight another political war like VN and treat the enemy as criminals, we should withdraw and send in the FBI to handle it. Afterall, that's their type of mission. Capture, mirandize and take them to court.

Otherwise, we need to take the gloves off, drop leaflets and then carpet bomb the country from north to south then east to west like we were going to do in VN until the (democrat) politicians took charge of the war from DC. Either let our troops "Kill people and break things" without restrictions or pack their trash and get out. IMO

I haven't seen the rescue hoist on the USAF CV-22Bs, are you sure you didn't meant USMC MV-22B ?

Yes.

Maybe time to get back to the V22 Osprey? :hmm:

Tilt-rotor helicopter still looking for mission




By Andrew Tilghman - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Sep 20, 2009 9:09:37 EDT

The Navy may replace its aging fleet of C-2 Greyhounds with tilt-rotor V-22 Ospreys, a Navy spokeswoman said.
“The V-22 is being considered as one option for the replacement of the C-2; however, there has been no final determination and, to date, there have been no Navy-specific requirements designed into the V-22,” said Lt. Callie Ferrari, a spokeswoman at the Pentagon.
The Osprey — a revolutionary aircraft that takes off like a helicopter and flies like a fixed-wing plane — has just recently begun to deploy with the Marine Corps, its primary customer.
Last year, the Marines took the MV-22 Osprey to Iraq; this year, the aircraft deployed at sea for the first time on the amphibious assault ship Bataan.
Talk of a Navy variant of the V-22 dates back decades, but it’s always been unclear precisely what, if any, role it might fill.
The original V-22 program that began in the 1980s included three possible applications for a Navy Osprey — combat search and rescue, special warfare and fleet logistics.
Today, the growing fleet of H-60 helicopters handles the bulk of combat-search-and-rescue missions as well as some special warfare support.
Meanwhile, the C-2, known as a carrier on-board delivery plane, or COD — bringing mail, supplies and people to carriers — is nearing its twilight years.
Today’s fleet of 35 CODs dates back to 1984. The aircraft has reached the end of its initial service life, but Navy officials have put them through a service-life extension program, said Marcia Hart-Wise, a spokeswoman for the C-2 program office at Naval Air Systems Command.
The program aimed to stretch their lifespan from 10,000 flight hours to 15,000. So far, 28 of those 35 aircraft have undergone the SLEP.
Navy officials were unable to say how long the C-2 is projected to remain in the fleet, or when its replacement will be needed.
The Navy agreed to buy 48 Ospreys in the aircraft’s “program of record” — a long-term planning agreement between the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force.
But the Navy, unlike the other two services, has never allocated money or carved out a clear mission for the aircraft.
In the past, the Osprey also has been considered a potential anti-submarine platform, or an “SV-22,” and for electronic warfare, or an “EV-22.”
A spokesman for Bell-Boeing’s Osprey program said they have discussed with Navy officials the possibility of providing an Osprey for “fleet logistics.”
Other uses remain conceptual at this point

Oh, that's great. A zillion-dollar development program and they're replacing Stoofs. Good lord, you could probably buy up every old Cessna 401, put hooks on 'em and call them CODs.

Wasn't Navy interested in what comes of the Lockheed ACCA program ? You know, a JET powered transport plane ?

Replacing a plane with tilt rotor that have less range, speed, OEI performance, cost twice as much, and have common logistics with... nothing else... it's a joke right ? My crystal ball shows an AEW&C variant next... :}

I bet Shorts could come up with an improved Sky Van that would work a treat!....and you could buy the entire fleet for the price of one Osprey!

The Navy will not buy the V-22 to replace the Grumman C-2. Too expensive. Most likely, a bunch of people in the Pentagon were sitting around, discussing the old C-2s and what should be done with them in the long run. One of the options on the list was, "Replace C-2 with V-22," over which the Admirals and such probably had a good belly-laugh at the stupidity of such a thing. But hey, even the most outlandish suggestions must be considered, even the ones that everyone knows won't work. Then some media boob got ahold of that information and came to the brilliant conclusion that, "THE NAVY IS CONSIDERING REPLACING THE C-2 WITH THE V-22!!! OMG!!!"

Jeez Louise. Not. Gonna. Happen.

Yes, all of the current C-2's were manufactured back in the mid-1980s. This does not mean that they are entering their "twilight years," which is just a silly thing to say. The phrase brings to mind doddering grandfathers who've outlived their usefulness. Which is not the case with the current C-2.

The 35 C-2's in the inventory are undergoing an improvement program that will keep them operational until 2027. Mostly, it's about increasing the number of allowable carrier landings. But then what...after 2027?

Well...I suppose Grumman *could* be enticed into re-opening up the line and building 30 or so more C-2s. They could call them C-2A(R)(R) for "re-reprocured." Or maybe just call it the dang B-model. I mean, if something works well - as the C-2 so obviously does - and nothing is on the drawing board to replace it, then why not stick with the original? What's wrong with that?

The C-2 carries more troops and litters than a V-22. And it does it faster. On less horsepower (fuel consumption).

And it won't melt and buckle the carrier deck when it lands.

Replace the C-2 with the V-22? Suuuuuuuuure.

Windstorm in Frankfort Kentucky
 

Low-flying military aircraft leave street in disarray

Study: Air Force CSAR should grow, not shrink

V22 operational issues
 

The V22 ultimately suffers from the same basic problem that any VTOL aircraft with a turboshaft engine suffers from: Debris ingestion into the engine during landing or takeoff that results in erosion of the compressor airfoils. This is a serious problem with any turboshaft engined aircraft, whether fixed wing, tilt rotor, or rotary wing. The V22's Rolls AE1107C engines are lasting less than 100 hours in service, even with their modern IPS systems. These are 1000 hour MTBR engines that likely cost over 1.5 million dollars each.

Besides the engine life issues, there are also issues with other subsystems such as the electrical slip ring life in the rotor system.

The reason the V22 is attractive as a CSAR platform is due to its speed and range capability. But its primary drawback for CSAR is its high rotor downwash velocities.

Wouldn't it make more sense, for a MK II with engines fitted on the side of the fuselage, or under the wings?

It would require new gearboxes and hard points though would seem to solve several of the criticisms with the current design....

$1.9M a pop according to the latest contract award ($128M for 66 donks).

The unfortunate design issue with the AE1107 is its 14-stage axial flow compressor, which renders it more prone to FOD damage than an axi-centrif architecture. The Corps has previously hinted that it is considering replacing the AE1107 with the more robust five-stage axi/single-stage centrif GE38 from the CH-53K, but whether anyone really has the appetite for such an engineering effort at this stage in the game has to be questionable.

I/C