|
"There but for the grace of God goes..." any new machine. Not a chargable foul, guys!
|
When i was an automotive powertrains man we used to use an exponentially decaying curve to estimate the expected number of faults per test hour. It is suprisingly true in other areas of engineering. The problems never go away, but as more "unknowns" reveal themselves the development team can identify and solve the root cause.
Given the statistical nature of this development process, it always amazes me that it is generally the money men who struggle to get it... Mart |
Graviman, no point in explaining stuff like Bath-tub reliability curves to the unbelievers, it only ruins a good story about how crap the V-22 is.
|
Actually, I think it only means how crappy limey vendors are.
The Sultan |
Sorry, is TI an English company? Or did BAE Systems (limey, but in denial) change supplier to a US one to provide pork?
|
V-22 Requires Even More Special Treatment
So you'd like to use a V-22 at your airport or pad huh, well make sure it only operates over concrete. (Oh yeah, it will also warp USN carrier decks)
--------------------------------------- AL ASAD,Iraq (June 5, 2007) -- The Marine Corps’ MV-22 “Osprey” now has an easier target to sight in when landing at Camp Ramadi. Thanks to a group of Marines, the forward operating base now has a true expeditionary airfield to receive frequent troop movements and re-supplies. The expeditionary airfield technicians and heavy equipment operators of Marine Wing Support Squadron 371 began building two landing pads for the Osprey and other air assets at Camp Ramadi, April 25. “The Osprey is coming into theater and we’re building two landing pads so they can bring troops and supplies into Ramadi,” said Staff Sgt. Joseph B. Hague, an expeditionary air field technician with MWSS-371. Although the MV-22 has increased troop carrying capacity and the ability to fly further and faster than other helicopters, the Osprey needs additional landing space because of the wide rotor span. “This project is specifically for the Osprey,” said Lance Cpl. Roberto Zepeda III, an expeditionary airfield technician with MWSS-371. “Most helicopters only need a 96 by 96 foot pad, but we expanded to 120 by 120 so the Osprey can land.” Marines came from various sections at ‘371 comprising a 31 man team, created to help the expeditionary air field section lay two 120 foot by 120 foot AM-2 matting landing pads. “The matting itself is used universally for landing zones and runways,” said Hague, a Gainesville, Fla. native. “It’s very durable so it can be put anywhere. Basically if there’s ground there, you can put this matting down. It can be used for temporary or permanent airfields.” Prior to this project, Ramadi’s only landing pad was made of asphalt which can be melted by the heat produced when the Osprey takes off or lands vertically. The AM-2 matting is made of high grade aluminum and can stand up to elements like extreme heat and cold. The matting can be laid on any type of flat terrain and can be utilized by any military aircraft. The scheduled 30 day project consisted of two phases; surveying the terrain and constructing two landing pads with heavy equipment, then laying the AM-2 matting. The EAF Marines then painted and lighted the new landing pads. “Matting is simple, it’s like putting together a big puzzle,” said Hague. “You stake it down, then paint it, light it, and certify it. The minute it’s built and certified, you can land on it.” The AM-2 matting was installed specifically to support the Osprey, but every aircraft landing in Ramadi will welcome the change. The airfield was a dirt lot with a small existing asphalt pad, according to Hague. The asphalt pad can only sustain two aircraft, any additional aircraft land in the dirt. With the new pads, the extra aircraft will be able to come in and land on pads while they’re waiting to refuel and load or unload passengers. While increasing aircraft efficiency the new landing pads will also cut down brown out conditions making it safer for aircrews. “It’s going to help out with all the aircraft traffic,” said Hague. “They’ll be able to bring in more aircraft for supplies, moving troops, and transport between bases.” |
Looks like they've put the fuselage on sideways on that tri-plane!
Reminds me of the old joke about Airfix kits - the one about "add glue to the box and shake well". Nimby |
Popular Science magazine honors the V-22 with a Best of What’s New Award for 2007
http://www.shephard.co.uk/Rotorhub/D...e-b2423975f034
(Amarillo, Tex., Nov. 13, 2007) – Calling the Bell Boeing V-22 a “two-in-one marvel,” POPULAR SCIENCE has named the Osprey to its list of “The Best of What’s New” for 2007. Now in service with the U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force Special Operations Command, the V-22 is a tiltrotor aircraft with engine nacelles at the tips of both wings. With the nacelles in the vertical position the V-22 can take-off, hover and land like a helicopter. With the engine nacelles in the horizontal or forward position the V-22 can fly more than 300 mph with the long range of a fixed wing turboprop airplane. “We’re delighted and honored that POPULAR SCIENCE has chosen the V-22 for recognition this year,” said Bell Boeing Program Director Bob Kenney. “This is a tribute to the thousands of Bell and Boeing employees who work on the V-22 as well as the hundreds of young men and women with the Marines and Air Force who operate and fly the Osprey.” Each year, the editors of POPULAR SCIENCE review thousands of products in search of the top 100 tech innovations of the year; breakthrough products and technologies that represent a significant leap in their categories. The winners—the Best of What’s New—are awarded inclusion in the much-anticipated December issue of POPULAR SCIENCE, the most widely read issue of the year since the debut of the Best of What’s New in 1987. Best of What’s New awards are presented to 100 new products and technologies in 10 categories. The V-22 Osprey is part of the Aviation & Space category. Boeing Rotorcraft Systems, a division of The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA], and Bell Helicopter, a unit of Textron Inc. [NYSE: TXT], share responsibility for production of the V-22. At its Rotorcraft Systems factory in suburban Philadelphia, Boeing builds and ships completed Osprey fuselages to Bell’s Amarillo, Texas, facility for installation of aircraft wing and tail assemblies and delivery to U.S. armed forces customers. The V-22 Osprey program is slated to deliver 458 tiltrotors in the next decade to the U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command and the U.S. Navy. |
Col. Glenn Walters: Take it from this Marine aviator: The Osprey is worth every penny
http://www.amarillo.com/stories/1120..._8957330.shtml
ESCONDIDO, Calif. - Unlike most of the V-22 critics, I have actually flown the MV-22 Osprey. I flew hundreds of hours in this remarkable aircraft when I commanded the Marine Corps' test and evaluation squadron from 2003 to 2006, and I am obliged to tell the truth. The truth is the Osprey is the most thoroughly tested aircraft in the history of aviation for one fundamental reason: the safety of its passengers. Our nation expects the military to use the best engineered, maintained and operated equipment available. Our troops deserve it. The Osprey we are flying today is just that. Critics say we haven't flown the Osprey in the desert. Not true. My squadron flew in desert environments on multiple occasions, totaling months of tests. The squadron now in Iraq completed several desert training periods prior to deploying. In fact, we just had another squadron of MV-22s in California and Arizona doing more of the same. Not only can the Ospreys fly in the desert, the aircraft's advanced technology makes it easier than in any other rotorcraft to land in brownout conditions. Other critics point out that the MV-22 does not have a forward-firing weapon, but none puts this in context: No medium or heavy-lift aircraft in the U.S. inventory has a forward-firing weapon. MV-22s flying in Iraq have ramp-mounted machine guns, which have become the standard on our aircraft in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, based on the threat. That, and the inherent capabilities of the aircraft (range, speed and altitude), give the MV-22 the ability to reduce susceptibility and vulnerability to many threats. The MV-22 has limited visibility through the cabin windows, much like the CH-46 and the CH-53E, but what most critics do not know is that the troop commander, who rides in the back of the Osprey, has unparalleled situational awareness from the onboard precision navigation system, with moving maps and a significant communications capability. These capabilities are not an option in existing Marine Corps aircraft. The MV-22 is the most maneuverable medium-lift assault support platform in the world. Conventional helicopters are limited to standard rotary wing tactics and airspeeds, while the MV-22 has the ability to fly like a turboprop airplane as well as a conventional helicopter. As an airplane, it can climb or descend at a significantly faster rate than any helicopter and transit at much higher speeds. Vortex Ring State is a phenomenon experienced by all rotorcraft - not just the Osprey. While the MV-22 is the only aircraft with a warning system that alerts pilots to VRS conditions, it is the least susceptible to this phenomenon. To argue whether the aircraft is worth the money spent is an unending debate. To the injured Marine or soldier whose life is saved due to the unparalleled capabilities of the MV-22, I would posit that the aircraft is worth every penny. Col. Glenn Walters heads the Marine Corps' aviation plans section in the Pentagon and previously commanded Marine Tiltrotor Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 22 (VMX-22). |
The latest "Mission Capable" readiness rate has been reported being 75% for the aircraft in Iraq and is said to be comparable to other USMC aircraft.
|
I have the pleasure of seeing this magnificent aircraft flying on a daily basis. Will post a few pictures in due time.
|
Eating Crow on Black Friday!(?)
With the V-22 now flying at 400 MPH and sporting a "Heavy Machine Gun" on its ramp, I thinks some apologies are in order from the V-22 Naysayers.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/11/23/news/top_stories/20_10_7811_22_07.txt Osprey said to be performing well in Iraq By: MARK WALKER - Staff Writer Nearly two months after the controversial Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft began flying in Iraq, a Marine Corps official said this week that no significant problems have emerged for the much-troubled aircraft. "They have been moving troops and supplies with ease," Maj. Eric Dent at Marine Corps headquarters at the Pentagon said in response to an inquiry from the North County Times. "There have been no significant maintenance issues." The Osprey's performance is closely watched by Marine Corps officials and critics of the hybrid aircraft, which takes off and lands like a helicopter and flies like an airplane at more than 400 mph with tilt-rotor propellers. The Osprey and its tortured development were the subject of a Time magazine cover story last month, which noted the Marine Corps had spent $20 billion developing the aircraft and that 30 lives were lost during training missions before it was put into service. Seven years ago, two Osprey crashes killed 23 Marines. Nineteen died when one went down near Tucson and four others died a few months later in North Carolina accident. Fourteen Camp Pendleton Marines and one from Miramar Marine Corps Air Station perished in the April 2000 crash in Arizona, a mishap investigators blamed on a condition called vortex ring state, a danger for all helicopters. Another Osprey also crashed in a nonfatal accident and others have been damaged in mishaps involving fires, including one earlier this month in North Carolina, and stalled engines and software problems. Officially designated the V-22, the first 10 Ospreys to see active service were sent to Iraq in September and began flying missions in October. The North Carolina unit in Iraq, VMM-263, has been flying sorties in Iraq for more than a month, although the Marine Corps would not say precisely how many missions it has flown. "So far, the squadron has performed exactly as projected," Dent said. "The V-22 is making a significant difference in the way Marine aviation provides medium lift assault support to our Marines on the ground and we could not be more pleased." Among the issues being closely watched is the Osprey's ability to withstand an attack of ground fire and respond. The aircraft now only has a rear-mounted machine gun but the service is working with the manufacturer, Boeing and Bell Helicopter, to install a second, forward-mounted gun and working on a remote-controlled turret gun. Dent was unable to say if the Osprey had been involved in any firefights, but a former Pentagon official has said he believed the Marine Corps is restricting the Osprey's use to avoid combat. The official, Thomas Christie, who was the Defense Department's director of Operations, Test and Evaluation for five years until retiring in 2005, said earlier this year that he believed the Marine Corps would carefully plan initial Osprey missions to avoid its flying into areas where ground fire would not be unexpected. Dent said he was unable to address Christie's assertion. That may be because Gen. James Mattis, former commander of Marine Corps Forces, Central Command, ordered in September that a tight lid be kept on the Osprey's operations, according to a Marine Corps source familiar with that directive. Dent said he was also unable to report the number of missions the Osprey has flown. Approximately 11,000 Marines and sailors from that force's Regimental Combat Teams 1 and 5 and its headquarters group will assume responsibility for security in Iraq's Anbar region after the first of the year. It was not clear this week if the Osprey unit now in Iraq will return to the U.S. next year and be replaced by a similar unit deploying with the locally based troops. Although the Osprey has a range of more than 2,500 miles and can carry up to 24 troops or 20,000 pounds of cargo, the ones sent to Iraq went by sea. The only known problem since the Osprey arrived came during its flight from the deck of the vessel that ferried it there, the amphibious assault ship Wasp, to the Al Asad Air Base in Anbar. One Osprey was forced to land in Jordan and make a second unscheduled landing the next day because of an undisclosed mechanical issue, the Marine Corps said at the time. A former head of the Marine Corps' helicopter test and evaluation squadron, Col. Glenn Walters, recently wrote a column for the North County Times defending the Osprey. Walters argued that the Osprey is the most thoroughly tested aircraft in the history of aviation and pointed out no similar aircraft has a forward-firing weapon. He also said the Osprey is the most maneuverable medium lift helicopter in the world, with the ability to climb or descend at a significantly higher speed than any other helicopter. To date, the Marine Corps has received more than 52 Ospreys from the manufacturer as it moves to replace its fleet of Vietnam-era helicopters. The service has ordered more than 360 Ospreys for combat assault and support missions, and the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command is buying about 50. |
Combat Photo of V-22 Doing Its Thing !!
http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/d.../v22iniraq.jpg
071023-M-2166H-008 AL ASAD AIR BASE, Iraq (Oct. 23, 2007) MV-22B Ospreys fly over U.S. Navy Hospital Corpsman 1st Class Troy Juarez, assigned to Marine Aircraft Group 29, as he acts as an injured pilot waiting to be rescued during a Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel (TRAP) exercise at Al Asad Air Base. This TRAP exercise is being conducted as training in the event of actual situations. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Michael Haas (Released) Now finally supporting Marines in Iraq we find the long awaited V-22 accumulating war time combat flight hours doing missions that could have been done at Disney World. Kinda makes ya proud don't it. |
V-22: When Words Have Consequences
http://www.shephard.co.uk/Rotorhub/D...9-419f8b838974
The following will appear in the 'Eye on Americas' column in the November-December edition of Defence Helicopter magazine. *** Can a V-22 autorotate? No, but the reasons it won’t have to are more important. Do USMC MV-22Bs have a forward-firing gun? No, but the reasons they don’t need one are more important. Have Osprey prototypes crashed? Yes, but the specifics of each incident are the real point. Selectivity - of the extreme type practiced by Time magazine in a recent cover story (‘A Flying Shame,’ September 27, 2007) - hold readers hostage to an incomplete, at best, parsing of the facts. Speaking as a correspondent who has followed the Osprey debate pretty thoroughly over the years, this is a disservice to a genuine advance in national aeronautics capability of which the nation should be proud, not dismissive. In fact the Marines - currently and no doubt tentatively probing it’s use in Iraq - deserve our admiration for their foresight. We will go out on a limb: the Osprey is safe, well tested (within the limits of human capability), and well poised to pay back the investment of national will and treasury it took to get here. Over the years this is a circus that has been fascinating to watch. A sort of tendentious negativism has come to roost among the Osprey's critics, which won’t be moved whatever the evidence. In parallel, meanwhile, the technology inside it has vaulted ahead; early Ospreys, designed when digital meant watches bear, practically speaking, no resemblance to the current models. Materials, digital controls, production predictability, maintenance and support - in fact, almost anything aerospace science and technology has given us - has in turn accelerated beyond recognition over the past ten years; it’s undeniable that much of it has made its way into the aircraft. We were at a small Virginia airport this summer when a USAF crew returned in a CV-22. They had just flown out of the Blue Ridge mountains, 40-50 feet off the ground doing 200 knots, in actual fog, to prove a wondrous thing called TFR (terrain following radar) works as advertised. We were in the back of an Osprey over Britain’s Salisbury Plain when its USMC pilot suddenly got taken by an urge to rack his aircraft around. No agile helicopter (and we’ve flown Apaches, Cobras, Lynxes and MH-6s) can perform like an MV-22 near the ground. Ospreys feel - well, they feel, in a word, tough. Helicopters creak and flex in the air, particularly so when flying radically. The V-22 is testament to its precision composite construction. Some time ago - at the height of the vortex ring state paranoia - we fashioned a satirical Time magazine/Washington Post type headline: 'Sources revealed today that a 747 will fall out of the air if the pilot allows it to get below about 100 knots. Engineers call it ‘stalling’ and although they’ve known about it for years, nothing has been done...' Absurd on its face, but it has to be said (and we’re sorry to say it) the pilots in the Marana accident (four of them, the two in the lead aircraft got down with busted parts and bruised egos) flew their aircraft outside the envelope that was designed (and so noted in the flight manual) to ensure it didn’t ‘stall.’ We have - over the years - been impressed by the brainpower, persistence and commitment that’s gone into this project. I know, I know, ‘big’ media will accuse me (they already do) of drinking the Koole Aid, but it’s a fact: this aircraft epitomises the best the aerospace culture today can come up with, which is saying a lot. It’s not designed to ignore the realities of landing at hostile LZs, or built to ignore the fact it can’t auotorotate for convenient reasons. It’s built, instead, to take account of new realities that have grown up while most of its negative correspondents have assiduously been fighting the last (Vietnam) war and ignoring what’s been happening since. Battlefields today are digitally networked, prepped by precision missiles and bombs that don’t miss, hosts to true combined arms and joint integrated force action that has appeared only relatively recently. (Surveillance, for example, is today a huge differentiatior, with UAVs doing real-time reconaissance, feeding the stuff back directly to the cockpit). No, the days of little Hueys, crewed by some of the bravest aviators in history, spiralling down into gun and rocket fire are probably over. (We say probably because asymmetric warfare is a problem; the appearance of IEDs in Iraq is an asymmetric problem). But we also would say we respect the Osprey critics we’ve met, the real critics, the ones - industry and military - who have had to do the figuring, fix the processes, design the work-arounds, fly the tests flight, and who are part of the iterative process. To deny the genuiness of their effort, conscientiousness and professionalism is not only wrong, but it is to fall into today’s one-sided cultural thinking - that everything that lacks an instantly emotional identity is somehow not valid. Anything said in defence of something like the Osprey is dismissable for falling outside the cultural norms of the day. Time magazine didn’t do this directly, obviously, but Chuck Allen, the Boeing rotorcraft GM where they build half the V-22, told me he got letters from workers asking why their efforts were being thrown to the journalistic winds like this. Another source talked of mothers concerned their (Marine) kids would fly the Osprey in Iraq. We saw Fox NewsTV - discussing the article - show the tape over and over again from Grady Wilson’s Wilmington accident years ago (1991, an early prototype, with both pilots getting out unhurt). It was troublesome that some gunner in some far off place somewhere might just have relished it greatly - the angles, the way the controls moved, the profile it presented against the skyline - for the info it gave him. It seems we’re too casual about the criticism we sometimes bring to these things. Words have consequences. - David S. Harvey. |
Seems like the Spec Ops CV-22s will have a much better system than the Marines 'gun on the ramp' set up...
BAE Systems to Provide All-Quadrant Interim Defensive Weapon System For CV-22 Osprey JOHNSON CITY, N.Y.-- BAE Systems will develop an interim all-quadrant defensive weapon system for the CV-22 Osprey aircraft. The contract awarded by the U.S. Special Operations Command, calls for rapid development, installation, testing, and qualification of a weapon capability that provides defensive fire protection to all quadrants of the aircraft. The belly-mounted system is remotely operated and capable of delivering accurate, sustained fire throughout the CV-22’s flight envelope. The contract is valued at $491,000, with a potential value of $16.3 million, including options. "At BAE Systems, we pride ourselves on the work we do to protect those who protect us," said Clark Freise, vice president of defense avionics for BAE Systems in Johnson City, New York. "This system will provide vital protection to this aircraft, its operators, and the Special Operations personnel that it will carry.” The weapon system is based on BAE Systems’ Remote Guardian System, a company-funded effort to develop a common airborne defensive capability. BAE Systems has been investing in the RGS for more than two years and unveiled the system in October 2007 at the Modern Day Marine military exposition in Quantico, Virginia. |
MV-22 ‘Osprey’ brings new capabilities to the sandbox
AL ASAD, Iraq(Jan. 23, 2008) -- The Marines of Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 arrived at Al Asad to support air operations in the Al Anbar province on Oct. 4, 2007. The ‘Thunder Chickens' took over the entire range of combat medium lift assault support missions in support of Multi-National Forces – West from Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 363 to include battlefield circulation, raid and Aeroscout operations, helicopter/tiltrotor governance,Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel alert and casualty evacuation alert, flying everywhere within MNF-West throughout the battlefield from Baghdad to Al Qaim providing an operational capability over distance and time that has effectively collapsed the battlespace. The squadron has completed more than 2,000 ASRs in the first 3 months of the deployment, keeping approximately 8,000 personnel off dangerous roadways and accruing approximately 2,000 flight hours. They have accomplished every mission and met every schedule while maintaining an average mission capable availability rate of 68.1%. The New River based MV-22 squadron has experienced a higher operational tempo while deployed, with the squadron completing missions and accumulating flight hours at a sustained rate well in excess of anything they've done before. “The area of operations has, in a number of ways, highlighted the performance of the aircraft,” said Lt. Col. Paul Rock, VMM-263’s commanding officer. “Our area of operations is large and the aircraft's speed and range has been much-appreciated by many of the folks the squadron has supported. In addition, the precision navigation and situational awareness systems in the aircraft have enhanced our ability to perform such tasks as desert landings in brownout conditions.” In brownout conditions, the MV-22’s unique hover coupled capability significantly increases the safety of troops in the execution of combat missions enabling the Ground Combat Element to be safely and precisely inserted on the desired combat coordinates. No other helicopter or aircraft in the inventory has this unique operational capability and safety enhancement. It reduces and mitigates risk while significantly increasing both Ground Combat Element and aircraft survivability. Cpl. Bob Cowan, a crew chief with VMM-263, believes the aircraft has performed better than expected. The normal wear and tear of the desert hasn’t been as harsh on the bird as was originally expected. “The aircraft has performed better than expected,” said Cpl. Daniel Stratman, a ‘263 crew chief. “We haven’t had to replace any major parts like prop boxes or anything; the main problem out here is getting the parts for this aircraft. We can fix just about anything, the only thing that slows us down is getting the parts.” As a new aircraft, the supporting logistics system is new and this deployment provides valuable maintenance and logistics lessons learned that will enhance support of the aircraft in the future. The squadron, which was the Marine Corps’ first Tiltrotor squadron, has been training for this deployment since they stood up in March of 2006. Aside from the normal pre-deployment and Desert Talon training, the unit has completed two deployment-for-training operations to practice landings in brown out conditions and they also completed training with infantry Marines practicing inserting troops during raids and other ground operations. “We had some snags at the beginning, but we’ve learned from our mistakes,” said Cowan, a Cookeville, Tenn. native. “We’ve done the training back in the rear, but performing the missions out here is different, so we’ve ironed out the wrinkles.” The Marines of the squadron have kept their heads held high throughout the deployment and have done well at keeping the ‘Osprey’ mission ready. “Our Marines are doing great; it’s incredible to watch them work,” said Sgt. Maj. Robert VanOostrom, the unit’s sergeant major. “The weather is getting worse everyday … but they have to ensure a certain amount of aircraft are prepared to fly every day. The amount of time and energy they put in every day to make sure the aircraft fly, is incredible.” Almost every service member has heard of the new aircraft, but most Marines haven’t even seen the aircraft fly, not to mention fly in it. Now, many service members are getting their first flight in the Corps’ faster, farther traveling and heavier lifting aircraft. “In North Carolina you see the ‘Osprey’ flying every single day and it’s just another aviation platform. ,” said VanOostrom. “It’s ironic to see the individual Marine who gets on the airplane for the first time and sees what it can do and says ‘This is the coolest thing I’ve ever seen.’” The ‘Thunder Chickens’ have transitioned from a trained squadron to an experienced combat squadron that has completed every tasking and succeeded in maintaining the deployed operations tempo. VMM-263 has flown 5 Aeroscout missions, 1 raid, more than 1400 combat sorties and maintained an average mission capable readiness rate of 68.1% during their current deployment to Operation Iraqi Freedom 06-08. Source: US Marine Corps |
Osprey's assault vehicles can't haul ammo
Aircraft go to Iraq without them The Growler, manufactured in Robbins, N.C., can't perform up to its original specifications. Courtesy of American Growler Joseph Neff, Staff Writer When the Marines shipped their V-22 Osprey aircraft to Iraq last year, they had to leave behind the assault vehicles and mobile mortar system that fit inside the planes. The Marines' new mortar system can't safely carry its ammunition. That conclusion, from a government audit, is the most recent bad news for the Marines' attempt to ferry firepower inside the Osprey. The Defense Department inspector general is investigating the program, which is two years behind schedule and $15 million over budget. The system consists of a jeeplike vehicle called the Growler that pulls trailers carrying mortars and ammunition. The Growler, made in Robbins, N.C., costs $127,000 each and cannot safely pull its ammunition trailer, according to interviews and the report from the Government Accountability Office. The trailer has a tendency to bounce or tip over, which could crush a Marine riding in the back of the Growler. A Growler, not pulling a trailer, was reported to have tipped over last summer when it swerved to avoid a turtle in the road. The Marines won't discuss the program, known as the Expeditionary Fire Support System, because of the Defense Department's investigation. The problems were predictable, said Philip Coyle, who directed the Pentagon's weapons testing from 1994 to 2001. The Marines decided to start production before testing the vehicle and mortars, Coyle said. "It is a sign of rushing to failure," he said. The Osprey is a rotorcraft that takes off and lands like a helicopter and tilts its huge rotors forward to fly like an airplane. The aircraft, which costs $119 million each, has suffered cost overruns, a string of crashes that left 30 dead, and repeated watering down of specifications during its two decades of development. The Pentagon has declared that most of the Osprey's problems have been fixed, and the first squadron of 12 Ospreys went to Iraq in October. In 1999, the Marines decided the Osprey program needed assault vehicles to carry men and mortars on the battlefield. Some Growlers will pull the mortar systems on trailers. Others will be outfitted with a machine gun. The Ospreys are designed to take off from ships and go inland faster than helicopters. Once they land, the Growlers would provide assault firepower or machine gun cover for Marines on foot. In soliciting bids in 2004, the Marines announced they had "an aggressive schedule." In November 2004, the Marines awarded the contract to General Dynamics, which produced the mortar system. The defense giant uses a company in Robbins, Carolina Growler, to build a modified dune buggy with a design that recalls Vietnam-era jeeps. Gov. Mike Easley awarded Carolina Growler a $25,000 grant, and U.S. Rep. Howard Coble helped get a $300,000 grant and a $112,000 loan for the company from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Contract complaint The contract award was controversial because the founder of Carolina Growler, Terry Crews, is a retired Marine colonel with strong connections. The Defense Department received an anonymous complaint claiming that Crews was a close friend of Brig. Gen. William Catto, who headed the agency that awarded the contract, Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, Va. The complainant, who identified himself as a career procurement professional, said Catto steered the contract to Carolina Growler and General Dynamics. After demonstrations from three companies, the selection committee recommended the contract go to a team of United Defense, which supplied the mortar, and Rae-Beck Automotive of Michigan, which built a new vehicle from scratch. According to the complaint, the United Defense bid was technically superior and cost less, while the Growler flunked crucial tests and was coupled to a much more expensive mortar system. The Marine Corps inspector general corroborated much of the complaint but concluded that Catto did not influence the contract award or create a sense of impropriety. Its investigation was separate from the Defense Department's investigation, which is continuing. Catto, who has been promoted to the U.S. European Command, could not be reached. Crews declined to be interviewed. Jerry Bazinski, who owns Rae-Beck, said he designed his vehicle to meet all the original specifications. Most important, Bazinski said, his vehicle carried the mortar and ammunition. He said his system was faster, safer and more stable because it avoided using a trailer. "Anybody worth their salt will tell you when you introduce a trailer, you have greatly diminished mobility and stability," Bazinski said. "You've increased the probability of rollover by multiple times, especially behind an extremely narrow 60-inch vehicle." Specs diluted Before the contract was awarded, the Marines eased critical requirements. The vehicle had to reach only 5 mph off the road, the equivalent of a brisk walk. The requirement to climb a 12-inch obstacle, such as a downed telephone pole, was dropped. A Growler pulling a trailer could never have met the original requirements, Bazinski said; the changes allowed the Growler to stay in the running. A change that has Bazinski fuming concerned the Marines' requirement that the vehicle be capable of "driving onto/off the aircraft in both forward and reverse directions." At the demonstration in the summer of 2004, Bazinski's vehicle had trouble backing up the ramp into the Osprey with a full load of ammunition. The Marines told him he had 48 hours to fix it or fail the test. A colleague flew in from Michigan with a larger gear for reverse, and Bazinski and his crew installed it. The vehicle passed the test within the 48-hour frame, he said. The Growler, however, could not drive in and out of the Osprey with its trailer attached. In August 2004, the selection committee recommended Bazinski's vehicle and the United Defense mortar. Two months later, the Marines gave the Growler a second chance by reinterpreting the requirements: Trailers should be loaded separately instead of being driven on or off the aircraft by the vehicle. The trailer could be pushed or winched onto the plane. Within a week, the Growler passed after being allowed to take the test again. "From what I've seen," Bazinski said, "the performance specs were chasing the vehicle, rather than the vehicle being built to fit the specs." Bill Crisp, the president of American Growler, disagreed. "There has been no watering down of functional specs as far as I know," Crisp said. Crisp, however, would not answer specific questions, referring questions to General Dynamics or the Marine Corps. Tends to tip over David Best, an investigator with the Government Accountability Office, said that three times during testing the trailer tipped over or ran up on the vehicle. There could have been serious injuries had someone been in the back of the vehicle, where a third Marine sits. In September, as the Marines were poised to give final approval to the full order of 66 mortar systems and 600 Growler assault vehicles, Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, asked the Marines to postpone the decision so the Government Accountability Office could investigate. Levin wrote the letter after complaints from Bazinski and after a Detroit television station reported that a Growler traveling at 22 mph, without a trailer, had rolled over at Camp Lejeune when it swerved to avoid a turtle. Crisp, the Growler executive, wouldn't discuss the turtle report, saying the accident report was classified: "That may or may not have been true." http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/900148.html |
Marines Continue To Rave About Osprey
Friday, February 1, 2008
By: MARK WALKER - Staff Writer Hybrid copter-airplane doing well in first wartime deployment, officials say For years, critics attacked the Marine Corps' Osprey as an overpriced, unreliable and unsafe aircraft. In its first four months of combat duty in Iraq, however, the service says its combination helicopter-airplane is meeting all of its expected goals and is starting to prove its detractors wrong. "We are just scratching the surface on what the Osprey can do," said Maj. Eric Dent, a Marine Corps spokesman at the Pentagon. "When you examine all of its capabilities and what it will do in the future, we will show that it is a lot more than just another helicopter ---- it's a revolutionary aircraft." Dent's comments this week came after the Marines reported that the first 10 V-22 Ospreys to be put into action have logged more than 2,000 hours over Iraq, flying more than 2,000 missions. The Ospreys from the Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 from the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing in North Carolina have taken part in five combat missions, one raid and maintained a "readiness rate," or ability to fly on a moment's notice, of 68 percent. That's comparable to other aircraft in Iraq, Dent said. The Osprey also has been able to move 8,000 troops safely around Iraq and out of the reach of roadside bombs, the weapon responsible for a majority of deaths and injuries, the Marine Corps says. Two Ospreys recently helped evacuate casualties to medical care 85 nautical miles away in less than an hour ---- a feat, Dent said, "no other platform could have accomplished." "If I were a ground commander who needed to move a force, I would be very happy to know that I had an Osprey," Dent said in a telephone interview. The Osprey takes off and lands like a helicopter, using a tilt-rotor system. Once in the air, it can fly at more than 400 mph, carrying up to 24 troops. Its long and costly development, however, was punctuated by a series of accidents that took the lives of 27 Marines, including 14 from Camp Pendleton and four from Miramar Marine Corps Air Station. Those accidents and other mishaps during testing ---- as well as the Osprey's $20 billion development cost, incidents involving stalled engines and software problems ---- made the aircraft intended to replace the Marine Corp's CH-46 Vietnam-era helicopters a ripe target for critics. The lack of a forward-mounted gun is also seen as potential weakness in combat. One of the Osprey's most vocal critics, Phil Coyle, who served as an assistant secretary of defense for testing and development at the Pentagon from 1994 to 2001, continues to challenge the viability of the Osprey. "If they continue to use it pretty much as a truck hauling people around, they will be OK," Coyle said Tuesday. Coyle is now a senior adviser for the Center for Defense Information, a Washington group that monitors and analyzes defense policy. "As long as they don't get into situations requiring sudden maneuvers that have caused trouble in the past, they will keep being OK." Dent said Coyle's criticism is becoming outdated as the Osprey performs more missions in Iraq, including flights involving combat situations. "Critics have the easiest job in the world," he said. "They only have to be right once." Dent maintained that the Osprey has been flown throughout Iraq without any significant problems. "It is performing as we expected it would," he said. "It's doing the same missions all our other aircraft are called upon to do." Top Marine Corps officers, as well as Army Gen. David Petraeus, the overall commander in Iraq, have praised the Osprey after flying in it in Iraq. According to a Jan. 23 report filed on the Marine Corps Web site by a public affairs correspondent in Iraq, generals aren't the only ones pleased with the Osprey's performance. "We haven't had to replace any major parts like prop boxes or anything," Cpl. Daniel Stratman, a mechanic, was quoted as saying. "The main problem out here is getting the parts for this aircraft. We can fix just about anything ---- the only thing that slows us down is getting the parts." The "Thunder Chicken" Osprey squadron that has been flying in Iraq since October is scheduled to complete its assignment in April and will be replaced by another East Coast squadron, Dent said. The Osprey will eventually fly in Afghanistan, Dent said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates in January ordered 3,200 Marines to Afghanistan this spring to quell what military planners say is an expected uprising by the Taliban. That assignment is the first large-scale presence of Marines in Afghanistan since the 2001 U.S. invasion of that country. It will be two more years before the first Osprey unit is established on the West Coast. Current planning calls for basing a squadron at Camp Pendleton or Miramar following an environmental impact assessment and as more of the aircraft are produced, Dent said. http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008..._501_31_08.txt |
|
From Al Asad Air Base, Iraq
|
Coast Guard V-22 look alike cancelled
Coast Guard suspends payments for Bell's Eagle Eye drone project
By BOB COX Star-Telegram Staff Writer Coast Guard officials have shelved their once-ambitious plan to spend upward of $1 billion on Bell Helicopter's proposed Eagle Eye unmanned aerial vehicle system. The Coast Guard is still looking for the right unmanned aircraft for long-range surveillance, but Rear Adm. Gary Blore said in an interview Wednesday that the service had decided not to pay Bell for further work on its mini-tilt-rotor UAV. When the Eagle Eye was selected by the Coast Guard in 2002 as its ship-borne unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, Blore said, service officials thought that the aircraft was nearly ready for production. Now, Blore said, "we don't see the technology or the production readiness ... where it needs to be" after spending more than $100 million on the program. "It needs a lot of developmental work, and unfortunately we don't have a lot of money for developmental work." Blore, the Coast Guard's top acquisition officer, said the decision was made easier when he saw how much the Navy has invested -- $500 million to $750 million -- in Northrop Grumman's Fire Scout drone helicopter, which is much further along than Eagle Eye but still isn't production-ready. "The Coast Guard doesn't have that kind of money," Blore said. Bell spokesman Mike Cox said that company officials had not been told that the Coast Guard had made a final decision. "It's on our back burner, but we believe in the program. We still think it's a good system." Bell still has "some people working on the program at a minimal level," Cox said. What was planned Coast Guard officials selected the Eagle Eye in 2002 as part of a $12 billion, 20-year program known as Deepwater that aimed to upgrade the service's fleet of cutters, patrol boats and aircraft. The program was being managed by a partnership of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, with Bell being a subcontractor to Lockheed. The initial plan called for buying 69 Eagle Eye aircraft and 50 control stations, which Bell officials estimated could be worth $1 billion in orders. Bell developed the Eagle Eye concept -- sort of a miniature V-22 Osprey -- in the mid-1990s under a Navy contract and developed a prototype aircraft that flew some demonstration flights. What it called for As proposed for the Coast Guard, the small aircraft -- 17.9 feet long with a wingspan of just 15.9 feet -- would have a single, small turbine engine powering a tilting rotor on the end of each wing. Like the V-22, it could fly faster than a helicopter but land and take off vertically. The aircraft was to be deployed aboard a new generation of fast, longer-range Coast Guard cutters and would be remotely piloted to patrol wide areas for long periods and inspect ships or other targets. It was to have been equipped with cameras and other surveillance devices that would transmit pictures and data in real time. What happened Bell was supposed to produce three prototypes for delivery beginning in 2006. But as the Deepwater program ran into delays and budget problems, Coast Guard officials began scaling back and reassessing programs and had not spent much on Eagle Eye in the last couple of years. In October, service officials said they had "frozen" funding while they reassessed the service's requirements for unmanned aircraft. Steve Zaloga, an analyst specializing in UAVs for the Forecast International aerospace consulting firm, said the Coast Guard's decision is "not so much they're not interested in Eagle Eye as that Deepwater has gotten in deep doo." Blore said the Coast Guard will take its time to review options for UAVs and will probably consider acquiring either the Fire Scout for use on ships or a land-based drones such as the Predator, which is in use in Iraq and Afghanistan. [email protected] BOB COX, 817-390-7723 |
BAE Systems installs defensive weapon system on CV-22 Osprey
BAE Systems installs defensive weapon system on CV-22 Osprey in preparation for ground-fire and flight testing
http://www.shephard.co.uk/Rotorhub/D...b-08bbc8d67ff8 JOHNSON CITY, New York — BAE Systems has installed a remotely operated defensive weapon system aboard a U.S. Air Force CV-22 Osprey in preparation for ground-fire and flight testing. The hardware installation and ensuing fit-check, completed in January, follow the company’s recent selection to develop an interim all-quadrant defensive weapon system for the Osprey. The U. S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), which awarded the contract to integrate and test the weapon mission kit on the CV-22, is currently performing ground testing, with flight testing to follow. SOCOM oversaw the successful installation of the system hardware aboard the aircraft in January at Hurlburt Field, Florida. “BAE Systems installed the weapon hardware to confirm the system’s suitability to CV-22 and its mission,” said Clark Freise, vice president of defense avionics for BAE Systems. “We will work with SOCOM to complete the development of this system and to demonstrate its effectiveness in protecting these aircraft and the Special Operations forces they carry.” Using a GAU-2B mini-gun mounted to the belly of the aircraft, the weapon is designed to provide 360 degrees of accurate, sustained suppressive fire throughout the CV-22’s flight envelope. The weapon is based on BAE Systems’ Remote Guardian System™, a company-funded effort to develop a common airborne defensive capability for the V-22 and other special-mission rotary- and fixed-wing aircraft. BAE Systems designed the hardware and precision control systems without access to aircraft drawings or solid models, relying in part on its knowledge of the CV-22 as provider of the platform’s flight control system. BAE Systems has been developing the Remote Guardian System for more than two years and unveiled the system in October 2007 at the Modern Day Marine military exposition in Quantico, Virginia. In January the company announced its selection by SOCOM to provide an interim all-quadrant defensive weapon system solution for the CV-22. |
V-22 Defensive Armament
Was there any data on the weight of the gun system and typical ammo load?
John Dixson |
420 engine hour average!
V-22 engine trouble may lead to supplier switch
By DAVE MONTGOMERY Star-Telegram Washington Bureau http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/536059.html |
So the Osprey engines are lasting around 400 hours fleet-wide, eh? I actually laughed out loud when I read that. At a cost of...how much per unit?
Then I continued laughing. Till I almost started crying. And now the Marine Corps is now casting their "wide net" to see what *other* 7,000 horsepower turboshaft engines that can operate both horizontally and vertically might be out there? Good luck! How's about...umm...none? Rolls Royce, for its part very cleverly says that their engines have "met or exceeded" all of the Marine Corp. specifications...if not expectations. Uhhh, but you didn't specify how *long* you wanted the stupid engines to last, and is that *our* fault? Well is it??? And now the Marines are finally and begrudgingly admitting that the Osprey needs a gun...but not only *one* gun but a second gun as well...which means it's going to get even heavier...which means it'll probably need bigger engines...which means the RR people in Indianapolis are probably pulling their hair out and pointing revolvers to their heads at the prospect of trying to get the existing engine up to, say, a 500-hour overhaul interval, much less grow the engine to 7,000 shp. And so it goes... |
An interesting comparison would be the MTBO for the CH-53E....CH-47D engines to the Osprey's dismal 420 hours.
Here we sit with the US Economy and the US Dollar in crisis....as much in part due to the unbelievable national debt and yearly deficit spending, yet our politicians and military will squander untold billions of dollars on projects like the VH-71, V-22, Jacuzzi driven AMTRAC, wars to create the excuse for other new and wasteful projects. Eisenhower was right when he warned us of the dangers of a runaway military-industrial complex. This keeps up.....we will be right beside the Russians....trying to figure out how to buy potatoes!:ugh: |
Engine TBO for the CH-53E......"By replacing the -416 engine with the -419 in the Marines’ CH-53E Super Stallions, .... Additional savings come from a TBO extension of 3500 to 5000 hours. ...
|
What's the latest??? How about $10.4 Billion
Yes Gent's THE contract has finally been issued. Congrats to the folks at Boeing and Bell :D.
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Stor...yhoo&dist=yhoo |
|
That really has "Whet my Whistle" as they say, I wonder what it would cost to get that added added to my PPL(H)!:ok:
Peter R-B |
More ‘FODder’ for the Corps’ plans to re-engine the V-22: looks like the current donks struggle to provide OEI capability in OIF temps.
More V-22 engine problems I/C |
V-22 land in 'airplane mode' Gee, that's a nice feature!
Fort Worth
Posted on Sat, Jul. 19, 2008 Cause of V-22 engine issue is still unclear By BOB COX [email protected] FARNBOROUGH, England — The Marines Corps’ top aviator has confirmed that the service still isn’t sure what caused an engine problem in an MV-22 Osprey in Iraq last month that forced a precautionary landing well away from the base. In remarks earlier this week at the Farnborough Air Show, Lt. Gen. George Trautman III, Marine deputy commandant for aviation, said the pilot "did a fantastic job" of bringing the heavily loaded aircraft to a safe landing. The incident, first reported on star-telegram.com this week, occurred shortly after the aircraft took off June 21 with 20 Marines and a full load of fuel aboard. According to an internal Marine memorandum, the pilots found that the right-hand engine on the tilt-rotor aircraft would only generate about 60 percent of the required power, and they were unable to maintain altitude, even though the second engine was performing at full power. Trautman said the flight crew decided to make a "precautionary landing in a field" and were able to hover close to ground and make a vertical landing. At the time of the mission, Trautman said, temperatures in the region were about 104 degrees. The incident raises questions about why the pilot didn’t simply return to base. The V-22, once airborne and flying airplane mode, is required to be able to fly and maintain altitude after the complete loss of power in one engine. An interconnecting drive shaft links the two prop-ro- tors on the aircraft so that it can be powered by one engine. In the worst case, if a pilot is unable to hover after loss of an engine — which could prove impossible depending on the weight of the aircraft, temperature and altitude — the pilot could make an emergency run-on landing in airplane mode. Trautman said the Marines still don’t know exactly what was wrong with the engine. According to the internal memorandum, obtained by the Star-Telegram, an inspection showed possible damage to the engine compressor blades from foreign objects. But there was also an indication that the engine combustion liner was breaking up and pieces had further damaged other engine parts. The memo warned that the engine problem could have resulted in an accident or the aircraft being forced to land in enemy territory and the possible loss of personnel. Trautman downplayed reports that the Marines were unhappy with the reliability of the Allison/Rolls Royce turbine engines, saying they were performing about as well in the heat and dust of Iraq as other helicopter engines. Lt. Col. Paul Ryan, now commanding officer of VMM-263 Marine squadron, said he was pleased with the reliability of the Ospreys. Ryan said the squadron maintained about a 70 percent mission-capable rate, meaning that on average seven of its 10 aircraft was available for missions at any given time. The aircraft were operated about 65 hours per month and required less than 10 hours of maintenance for every flight hour, an indication that maintenance and repair requirements were relatively normal. BOB COX, 817-723-7493 |
Trautman said the flight crew decided to make a "precautionary landing in a field" and were able to hover close to ground and make a vertical landing. |
Couple of questions:
I don't know how the power is controlled in the V-22, but does the blottle have a trim switch with enough range to "beep one back" to 60% Q? ...Or, is the technology good enough now that the computers can manage such a big split in available power? Did they pull the bad one back to idle? (I'd bet real money they did.) Okay, so given the fact that they say they could not maintain level flight, and they say they couldn't make it back to base, and they say that they made a normal vertical landing, there is only one conclusion that can be made. Someone is lying. Deliberately? Probably. We don't know the real story and probably won't ever. The Marines won't ever admit anything bad about their beloved V-22. Two other interesting tidbits. I love the way Trautman says that the V-22 engines are performing "about as well" as other helicopter engines. That's pretty coy. (Hey Trautman, got that overhaul interval up to 500 hours yet?) But then Ryan tells us they have only 70% availability on any given day??? Jeez, what's causing all the downtime? Only 65 hours per month (2.1 per day) and 10:1 maintenance to flight, huh? Suuuuuuure. The numbers don't add up. Is MD or EADS supplying the spare parts? What's the problem with availability? And hey, go back to the video hosted on Eacott's site. 1:08 Love the barrel roll! 1:12 The XV-3! Shades of 1960! 2:56 Check out the dusty landing by a single V-22. Yikes! Holy downwash, Batman! Sometimes I think that people are in love with the V-22 because it just looks so damn cool and impressive. But you know what? That ain't enough, folks. |
70% availability for an aircraft that is being flown 65 hours per month......try that in the civlian world and survive?
That doesn't take in the fact the aircraft were "cherry picked" to ensure all major maintenance inspections would not take place during the deployment of the unit. The Osprey is said to be "comparable" in that regard to other USMC aircraft availability rates. |
What's all the fuss about engines?
Remember that Bell says:
"Bell spokesman Bob Leder said compressor stalls in such engines were "really nothing." "These kind of engine problems are very normal, not only within military aircraft, but in commercial aircraft," he said. Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Business News | Dallas Morning News |
Not another "Gee, what a surprise."
|
The V-22 issues go back a far as I can remember. In the early 1990s a Marine Heavy Lift Squadron in California planned an un-refueled flight from Tustin CA. to Quantico VA in a CH-53E. The aircraft was equipped with multiple Robertson 800 gallon internal fuel tanks and crew oxygen to permit flight at higher flight levels to take advantage of the winter jet stream. The flight was planned and ready for departure when Gen H. Blot, CG 3rd MAW and of Blottle fame cancelled the flight quoting I will not permit any CH-53 flight that could compromise the capabilities of the V-22. Up until then the V-22 could only be compared the CH-46, the aircraft it was to replace.
A year later a Navy MH-53 flew 720 NM, un-refueled from Patuxent River MD to West Palm Beach FL carrying 8000 lbs. of cargo in 7.5 hours. Again this flight went unrecognized by Marine Corp management. I am sure there are many similar stories. The sad part is that the Marines on the ground operate day to day with air support far inferior to what they require and deserve. With all of the politics, who is presently watching out for them and who if any has stepped up to apologize for those who have tragically made the supreme sacrifice in the name of this program.:( |
Some of this overexaggerated mumbo-jumbo being put out by the press is getting kind of aggrivating. Iraq is an absolutely horrible place to work a helicopter, especially in wartime conditions... and NOT just for the V22! IE:
"didn't mention the squadron had a dozen highly experienced Boeing tech reps to help Marines fix things" We had dozens of tech reps for our H-60s, from Sikorsky, GE, and AMCOM. We have a tech rep with us when we are stationed at home, as well. This is not out of the ordinary at all... especially with a new airframe! Any time we get a new piece of wiring or sensor or anything, we get a tech rep or two for many months, just to make sure things are working right, and help us figure out the tough problems. Considering the most experienced V22 mechanic in the Marines has only been actively working on the ship for a few years, tech reps are absolutley required. Not to mention the 100 or so contract mechanics we had supporting us. "He said the V-22s engines wore out too fast and lacked the power needed by the V-22" "He admitted that six engines had already been replaced, and later indicated that all engines will likely be replaced after less than seven months in Iraq" Nobody has all the power they need in 65C + temps. We ran out of juice all the time, and would have killed for bigger engines, but so did EVERYONE! The poor OH-58 helicopters would skid across the tarmac with an hour worth of fuel, a couple hundred rounds for the gun, and 3 rockets... but they were very effective with that! Everyone would love more power, but its not really possible in those conditions. Also, we replaced about a dozen engines on a dozen aircraft in a year and a half. Not to mention the engines that were swapped out during major maintenance. The sand out there kills engines, so does using them to their limits every day. Once again, nothing new for aircraft that are used down in the dirty. "OVER THE PAST 9 MONTHS V-22 BLOCK A AIRCRAFT READINESS HAS BEEN AN AVERAGE OF 47.8% MISSION CAPABLE AND 34.9% FULL MISSION CAPABLE WHILE BLOCK B AIRCRAFT READINESS HAS BEEN ON AVERAGE 79.3% MISSION CAPABLE AND 62.1% FULL MISSION CAPABLE." First deployment of a new type of aircraft, and it's doing damn good. We usually had 75-83% mission capable, with a "proven" and "dependable" aircraft. That includes an established spare parts and supply chain, and loads of experienced people there to jump on problems. As for the guns -- I've never flown around iraq with a machine gun, and never had a problem. We couldn't carry them, so we planned around not having them... it is not the optimum fix, but in the grand scheme of things, you don't always have to have a gun to defend yourself. However, if we did have machine guns, I would have traded them away in a HEARTBEAT for 100kts more airspeed. The damn things are having problems, but its a brand new aircraft type, and category! Maybe the thing will never do combat assaults into the hottest of LZs, but if people start thinking outside of the box and using different aircraft for missions they suit properly, we'd find that the V22 actually has a lot of use, just not for everything. God knows the Helicopter is not the perfect platform for a lot of the things we are using them for, so lets find more options like the tiltrotor and use them for what they are best at. Just my opinion. Mike |
Never going into "hot" LZ's is not necesarily a bad thing.....unless the guys on the ground are looking for a way out of the serious poo.
Sometimes you just have to stick yer neck out in meeting your basic mission requirement....that being supporting the Grunts out there who are going nose to nose with the bad guys. In that process they sometimes get hurt and the helicopter, errrr...excuse me....the CH-46 helicopter replacement....will have to earn it's keep by going right down there amongst the bad guys to fetch some poor infantry soldier from Death's Door. (Or does the tilt rotor crowd see themselves above that kind of thing and only operate to "cold" LZ's.....) Am I seeing a good question for the Osprey PR guys....that being....as the Osprey is replacing the Phrog (CH-46)....does that mean the Osprey will now take over the Combat Medavac mission or will that evolve to either the CH-53 Helicopter or the UH-1N Helicopter? Now if the USMC were to find itself buying some UH-60L's....for Combat Medavac that would tell the tale. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 13:37. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.