Well, you know...it just doesn't matter.

The believers, and by that I mean those who buy into the capabilities of the V-22, are willing to overlook a multitude of sins.

• The extremely high cost doesn't matter
• The terrible 'mission-capable' rate doesn't matter
• The fact that it can't operate from unimproved strips without setting themselves on fire doesn't matter
• The fact that V-22s don't last very long and are being retired early doesn't matter
• The fact that you cannot work on them below decks in the hangar of a ship doesn't matter

Nothing matters! No other aircraft can do what the V-22 can do, and we need it for that reason alone, by God. Plus it's...you know...sexy.

Umm...

The numbers released by the military are always interesting to me. Hey, we're all big boys...we all know how figures (especially statistics) can be "massaged." So I always view published figures with skepticism. Mission-capable rates? Yeah, sure, whatever. They mean nothing.

I didn't think anyone disliked the V-22 as much as me. It's amusing to see that Carlton Meyer is even less of a fan (albeit for different reasons). Obviously neither he nor I subscribe to the ridiculous "if it saves just one life!" canard.

It is hard to argue with the 53-D's being brought out of mothballs to fly combat missions when all those brand new shiny 22's are setting on stateside ramps....and were bought at great expense in money and lives to replace those very helicopters iddn't?:ugh:

Ran across this statement in article....and shows how much progress has been made in the combat experience and capability of the V-22.

I bet "USMC Helo" might be able to explain the Marine Corps method of producing readiness and availability data. The Army sometimes uses a bit of twisted math to achieve their numbers and I know the Marines are not above manipulating the numbers as well.

Concerning readiness the V-22 is is at the same point on the curve as any other platform in USMC when at 50,000 hours.

In Iraq all the other platforms EXCEPT the V-22 have depot level maintenance available at Al Asad. This reduces the number of aircraft that those squadrons have on reporting status while the V-22 squadron is always accountable for reporting 12. What does this mean? In a 46, 53 or H-1 squadron I take all the parts I need off of the aircraft that's about to go depot and put all my bad parts on it, and it doesn't count against me. In the V-22 squadron you're are stuck with the hangar queen. And yes, every platform has at least one hangar queen. From what I've read and heard concerning maintenance in Iraq you could replace "V-22" with H-1, or CH-53E or CH-46E and it be a true statement.

As far as the links to Carltons BS it's more than apparent that Carlton knows nothing about aviation much less USMC aviation operations. He subtly tries to insinuate that there is some sinister reason that the V-22's are not self deploying back to the states. There is, it's called logistics. Do you tie up the entire USMC East coast C-130 assets to refuel the V-22's or do you put the aircraft on a boat that's already in the Gulf to bring back other assets? The C-130's have higher tasking right now.

Maintenance below deck. Yup, he's absolutely right. Never ever do Marines do maintenance above deck.
Carlton says "Performing maintenance on a ladder is dangerous on rocking ship, so another maintainer must hold the ladder, effectively doubling the manpower required for each task."
I guess ships don't rock below deck? They must not since I've seen Marines using ladders to do maintenance on 53's and 46's. Hmm. Interesting bit of physics.

All those ladders I saw being used on 53's and 46's, engine cowlings open, oil cans and spouts, drain tubs, tool boxes, etc must have been being used for some reason other than maintenance. Did I mention that I saw that stuff while I was on short final to spot 2? The fact is all the things that Carlton thinks make the V-22 unsuitable for shipboard ops, if applied across the board to all other platforms, would make all aircraft unsuitable for shipboard ops.

Let's see, I've been a Marine aviator, deployed on multiple MEU SOC's, been a MEU SOC evaluator, and deployed to Iraq. But what do I know. We should all listen to Carlton who was an intel officer, probably never touched the controls of an aircraft, worked aircraft maintenance issues, dealt with the deck cycle or actually planned and conducted real aviation combat op. After all, those of us who've served know we can ALWAYS trust intel because it's NEVER wrong.

USMC

Did you mention that after three tours in Iraq all aircraft flew into their base in formation? Damn cool picture.

As Dan and SAS were quoting Carlton that the ships had to be trucked to the ship and no one can do maintenance on the ships. How the hell could they all fly back to their base?

The Sultan

Other Questions: Any 53 squadron in Vietnam ever come back with all aircraft? Chinook squadron? We know Afghan eats up Chinooks (Roberts Ridge).

So you think V22s would perform better than Chinooks in Afghanistan?

Sultan,

I did not quote Carlton...that was other posters but not I. Get your facts straight please.

As to Robert's Ridge....yes Chinooks got eaten up....by RPG's, .51 Caliber Machinegun and small arms fire. They did so taking the fight to the enemy at very close range trying to save other brave men who were dying in combat with armed enemies.

Do you know the full complete story of Robert's Ridge?

I suggest you read up on it and re-think your comments.

Many good men died that day and we owe them a full measure of respect.

That again seems to be something you cannot find yourself able to do.

I suggest you get your head out of your hind end when it comes to denigrating other folk's service in combat.....you'd be a much better person if you did.

What I love is how the V-22 proponents fold their arms across their chests, stick their chins out and say, "You can't criticize the V-22 unless you've flown one! So there!"

...Or, "You can't criticize any Marine aircraft unless you are a Marine pilot!"

...Or even better, "You can't compare the development of the V-22 to the XV-15 or any prototype that came before it! There's NO RELATION!" I really love that one.

Of course we can do all of the above. Seems to me that someone who's flying the aircraft might be a little too close to be objective.

What do we know so far? Well...

• The infamous hydraulic problems have *not* been solved. Gee, there's a surprise, whodathunkit?
• If a V-22 lands on a boat it melts the deck unless the proprotors are tilted forward and/or the deck has been modified to accept the high heat of the engine exhaust. Funny nobody saw *that* coming.
• If a V-22 lands out in the field it sets the field (and itself) on fire.

Carlton is big on hyperbole, yes. But he is not wrong about everything.

I also see where the Marines have not explained in detail why the forced landing occurred in Iraq after one of the 22's experienced a partial engine failure due to FOD to the compressor blades on one engine. It continued running and was producing partial power but the aircraft was unable to maintain altitude and was forced to land in an unsecure field location.

Does not the 22 have the ability to fly on a single engine in cruise?

Bell addresses engine problems.
 

http://www.rotaryforum.com/forum/images/icons/icon8.gif Bell reports compressor stalls as 'very normal'!
The V-22 is experiencing an incredible amount of engine failures for a variety of reasons. Most every engine failure has been able to go unreported to the public until a flight of 3 V-22s (one spare) was forced to land in Iceland to change an engine. (see ref below). Two of these aircraft were to proceed accross the Atlantic for an air show in England. It was also reported elsewhere that "All three over a span of 4 fly-days had compressor stalls."

In a nutshell, a Bell spokesmans says "compressor stalls are very normal in military and civilian aircraft.(!)

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...2.17ad314.html

Bell certainly must think that most people are as inept as their two decade old V-22 engineering team!

The Commandant of the US Marine Corps says the Osprey is perfect for Afghanistan. (I kid you not!)

However CH-53 D's and E's are going instead....as they have good loiter time and lift capability.

No Ospreys, for now, to Afghanistan - Navy News, news from Iraq - Navy Times

Gee, what a surprise.

FH1100 Pilot said:


Honestly, I don't think anyone is saying that at all. You have heard from a guy who has actual operational experience with the aircraft telling you that while it does have its flaws, the things you're focusing on are not the real problems.

You're looking at this with admitted bias and through the filter of your own experience which does not, I believe, include the V-22 or military operations. While it's just one man's opinion, he does have the benefit of seeing the aircraft up close and personal, and in the context of its current concept of employment. I, for one, like hearing what he has to say.

-Stan-

Stan Grossman:Heh. You too, Stan? In the interest of full disclosure, Stan should probably have mentioned that he was once a Marine pilot. Just forgot to mention it, I s'pose.

With all due respect, I have heard *exactly* the three things I quoted in the time we've been discussing the tilt-rotor (how long has it been now?).

As a Rotorcraft/Helicopter pilot of 30 years and 11,000+ hours of experience, I certainly *can* offer an educated and valid opinion on the V-22 in the helicopter mode. I don't have to be ex-military, or a V-22 pilot to do that.

As you know from our extensive personal discussions in the past, my "bias" toward the V-22 is based on the subject of A-VRS. People go on and on and on about how the V-22 is sooooooooooo fricken unlikely to get into "VRS" and that some such "new tactics" and procedures will prevent pilots from getting into it when approaching hot LZ's in the often-chaotic conditions of real battle.

I don't care about that. It's not "VRS" that I worry about. It's A-VRS. Asymmetrical VRS.

What I predict is that some V-22 (or maybe a 609 if it ever sees the light of day) somewhere will get into a condition where *one* of the proprotors nibbles at the edge of VRS. The tiltrotor will roll in that direction (remember, VRS isn't an on/off switch). As the ship rolls, the pilot will naturally make an anti-roll input, which will make things worse. Before he can get his fingers to the magic nacelle-tilt button, the ship will roll over and smash into the ground just like the one in Marana.

You mark my words: If the V-22 ever does get used in real combat situations, this WILL happen. And everyone will call it "pilot error."

Stan, I know that you believe that combat pilots can at critical times divert and focus their attention on things like the subtle changes in lift between the proprotors, but I am not so confident in the human being who's being overloaded with tasks, not to mention being shot at.

Now. Yes, that is my "bias" toward the V-22. It is the aspect of the Marana crash that people just want to sweep under the rug or otherwise ignore.

But in addition to that, we find that even 10 years down the road they have *not* solved the hydraulic problems that were so easily predicted. Did I actually hear a serious suggestion that they run the hydraulic lines *OUTSIDE* of the cowlings? Are they kidding?

Then we learn of V-22's melting boat decks, and setting themselves on fire in off-airport landings. ...And reliability reports that are suspicious at best.

And now some idiot at Bell Helicopter says that the compressor stalls that plague the V-22 are "common" in military *and* civilian helicopters?

Look, nobody is saying that the V-22 is a total, abject failure. OF COURSE it can do some things well.

It's just the biggest waste of tax dollars I've ever seen. I'm tired of my government spending *my* money on a piece of **** that will NEVER overcome certain insurmountable problems until some genius at Bell/Boeing can find a way to repeal the laws of physics. Maybe it'll be that idiot, Leder. (I was just trying to think of the last compressor stall I got in an aircraft...had to be back in 1988 or so in a PHI 206B with a bleed valve that was starting to go bad. And even then, it only happened on the ground as I was rolling the throttle up from Idle.)

But at the end of the day (and the end of the post) I see that, yes, you are completely correct, Stan. Since I have no military and no V-22 experience, I should just shut the hell up and leave the thing alone.

Hey wait, didn't I just complain about being told that? Once a Marine, I guess....

The scariest weapon in the U.S. inventory?

Fri, 06/05/2009 - 12:43pm

The V-22 Osprey, which takes off like a helicopter and then in flight tilts its engines forward to fly like an airplane, is an aircraft that just plain scares me. Basically, my problem is that it depends on levels of hydraulic pressure usually found in jet engines -- if I recall correctly, about 5,000 pounds per square inch. But unlike a jet, it flies into dirty places, where its rotors stir up flying dirt. And each little fleck of dirt that gets into the nacelles, which house the engines, can wear away at the hydraulic lines as they vibrate incessantly. This blog points out problems in the nacelles.

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/05/the_scariest_weapon_in_the_us_inventory

(Ya gotta register)

Stan,

Do we have to drink sour milk to prove our nostrils correct?

I believe that the V-22 is flawed
 

I believe like many, that the V-22 has some basic flaws. This view stems form my experience as a former Marine pilot with flight experience in the CH-53A/D/E, UH-1E/N, AH-1G/J/T and the CH-46D/E/F and having flown with many of the pilots that sustained fatal injuries in V-22 mishaps. These gentlemen were all consummate professionals assigned the task of testing and fielding this machine. All were very experienced second or third tour aviators more than capable of handling what most aircraft would throw at them. Their mishaps are proof that the machine got the best of them. Furthermore, I have reviewed the V-22 operators manual and have seen the many WARNINGS, CAUTIONS, LIMITATIONS and NOTES associated with what I would categorize as normal operating procedures. Anyone, performing a similar review of these procedures would come to the same conclusion, “The machine as fielded is flawed” My concerns lie not with the politics of procurement. The VH-71, Air Force CSAR, and next generation tanker programs more than highlight the system’s problems.

We should all be concerned with the safety and well being of those presently tasked with operating the V-22 and with those innocent passengers unfortunate enough to be assigned transport in it. :(

FH1100 Pilot said:

Now who's folding his arms across his chest and sticking out his chin?

Why so defensive? My comments were pretty innocuous, yet you deliberately twisted what I wrote and took offense. By no means did I state or imply that you weren't entitled to your opinion, but you really ought to open your mind enough to respect the perspective of those with direct knowledge and hands-on experience with USMC tactics and the subject aircraft. I'm pretty sure that at least a few of them can think for themselves and have not been seduced by the "system."

SASless:

Perhaps the V-22 program does deserve to be cancelled. Comanche was. F-22 production has been halted. The VH-71 is history. But, if we do cancel it let's make sure it's for the right reasons. Let's hear congress say it's too expensive, or the Marine Corps say it can't do the job.

While I hope it succeeds, I'm not an apologist for the program, the manufacturer, or the aircraft itself. It's just that the detractors persistent arguments have in many cases been discredited by those who will ultimately have to live and work with the thing and are in a position to know.

-Stan-

Svenestron

Ok, so you accuse me of cherry picking so I’ll try and do better this time.

You asked:

Is the deck or the hangar-bay designed for maintenance tasks (has cranes, lights etc. fixed)?
Yes.


How many helos or planes are taking off from the hangar whilst maintenance is blocking the deck? None

I believe what you are really asking is how does a V-22 spread on the maintenance deck affect flight ops? Is this correct?

All flight operations aboard ship are closely planned events. Starting in the A.M. the day before when Operations develops the schedule until Later that evening at the Air Ops meeting which consist of the ACE (Aviation Combat Element) operations and maintenance personnel, the Air Boss, the deck handlers, and a representative from the bridge. At this meeting it is determined which aircraft will be spotted where, what time it will take off, for how long, how many people, what it is doing, when it will return, whether it will be a gas and go or a shutdown and stow. Maintenance actions are also planned at this meeting to include what kind, whether it will be conducted top side or below decks, spot number, which aircraft need to be moved below decks and which need to come topside, etc. From this a spot plan/tow plan is developed so as not to interfere with flight ops. i.e. most movement of aircraft from/to the hangar deck and to the flight deck is accomplished before or after flight ops. After the initial launch and an aircraft is required to be towed the affected aircraft will be told to enter holding or the instrument pattern (assuming all the spots are being utilized…which is rare). Often this doesn’t affect the whole deck just certain spot numbers. Considering that the V-22 CAN be worked on below deck (despite other reports the engines can be worked on in the folded position with the exception of engine changes) the impact of V-22 maintenance on the boat is a logistical one, not an operational one. The hangar deck is always a crowded space and the movement of any airframe requires coordination with the deck handlers.

What part of a boat will normally rock more (see higher G’s), the lower or the upper?
Is the hangar or the deck colder, windier and rainier?
Do you like performing maintenance/inspections in salt-spray?

Since maintenance is accomplished on the flight deck to the maximum extent possible for all airframes these conditions apply across the board not just to the V-22. Daily, turn around and preflight inspections, pump changes, track and balance adjustments, etc are either accomplished in the slash or once the aircraft is spotted, very rarely in the hangar bay. I think there is a misconception that the aircraft are put in the hangar every night. In fact an aircraft on the MEU will spend 80-90% of the deployment topside, even during a typhoon, and only be brought down the hangar deck for major maintenance such as engine change, blade change, phase inspections (but I’ve seen these accomplished top side also). As sea state rises different aspects of maintenance are stopped based on conditions. For example at some point hoist operations are stopped for safety reasons, ladders are no longer aloud to be used, personnel are not allowed on the aircraft etc.

Does having a light on in the hangar-bay influence the visual profile of the ship?
This list could get long.

Generally speaking maintenance activities topside at night are limited to inspections and such for light discipline reasons but more importantly for personnel safety. If heavy maintenance is required the aircraft will have been relocated to the hangar deck (see above) and the hangar doors are closed for discipline reasons.

The point would however be that the V-22 CAN’T be worked on anywhere else should the need arise.

As I’ve pointed out, yes it can. Carlton never actually says that it can’t, he implies that it clobbers so much space that it’s better to work on it topside. The V-22 will present some planning issues but they are nothing that won’t be resolved. I think you under estimate the ability of the deck handlers and how they manage the flight/hangar deck.

My point about Carlton’s, and others, comments is that they have no context to compare them to. You read all of Carlton’s comments and think “Oh my God!”, I read them and think “and that's different how?”. Feel free to criticize but put it in context and don't make assumptions.

Oh yeah....The engine flame out thing. Why is someone posting a 3 year old news article as though it just happened? Open the link and look at the date…July 2006! No negative V-22 news so we had to pull out something from the past?

Personally I think the biggest waste of my tax payer dollars is the $6b a year we give in tax rebates to people who pay ZERO income tax. :eek:

I've had enough, I'm going on vacation.

Stan,

I agree with what you say about how to make the decision on the 22. However, one must bear in mind Boeing, Lockheed, Bell, Sikorsky or any manufacturer is going to say....scrap my project. The government...politicians, civilians, and military that have some much vested interest in the projects are not going to stand up and volunteer that statement either.

What effect would such a stand by a serving Marine Officer have upon career prospects for the person brave enough to make such a statement?

These programs are almost self fulfilling prophecies once they take life.


Eisenhower warned us of this many years ago!

Yes, any Marine Officer standing up publically for this POS is likely looked upon by his peers as a hero publically, but as a fool and apple-polisher otherwise. And like so many other unsolved problems, the engines are still junk and whether or not it's been a 3 or 4 year old problem, the taxpayer still hasn't gotten what the manufacturer crowed about (sounds like fraud), along with that greatest of all features: 'power by the hour' for the marines. Gee, what happened to that BS feature I wonder?

If anyone TRULY has a beef with the originator of these so-called falsehoods or reams of disinformation, then that person needs to go to the source for clarification and not the messengers here making reference to them...make sense? Here's a primer sports fans:

• Lee Gaillard via the World Security Institute’s Center for Defense Information: http://www.CDI.org
• Carlton via: http://www.G2mil.com
• Besides the GAO, complaints are also taken by these kind folks at: Disinformation: http://www.disinfo.com/content/index.php
• And as me dear ol' skipper at Marble would say: "If all else fails see your Chaplain": http://www.navy/chaplain/

And please 'share with us' what these people tell you. Thanks!