WT Forums

This aircraft has so many challenges/problems/limitations to overcome to be safe much less useful staggers my mind. LOL OTHOH some say staggering my mind doesnt take much.




Report Is Critical Of V-22 Osprey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense Today
July 14, 2004
Pg. 1

Report Is Critical Of V-22 Osprey

By Dave Ahearn

The V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft still suffers safety and "human factors" problems, a new report by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) asserts.

Ospreys, which were grounded in 2000 after fatal crashes, returned to test flights more than two years ago and have performed well, according to Marine Corps sources. The aircraft have been re-engineered and rebuilt to make them safer, and new procedures for flying them have been instituted as well. Marines note that Ospreys can fly twice as fast, and farther and higher, than the medium-lift helicopters they will replace, while carrying larger loads.

But the POGO report says some Osprey problems which the Marines cited in a closely-held survey have not been resolved in the flight-testing and re-engineering program.

The POGO report, entitled "In Their Own Words: Marines Critique V-22's `Human Factors,'" cites data compiled from almost 50,000 comments by pilots, air crews and other Marines about the Osprey, a half helicopter, half airplane that they flew in during 2000 or earlier.

Problems still unresolved with the V-22s, according to the report, include:

*The Osprey has two engines and two huge rotors that can move from helicopter mode, swiveling over to act as airplane propellers for level flight. But in helicopter mode, the downwash from the giant blades is strong, and kicks up immense amounts of blinding sand during desert landing, the report stated.

"This `downwash' interferes with needed operations below or close-by the aircraft during troop embarkations, while hooking-up external equipment loads, and during fast-roping operations when the aircraft hovers near the ground and soldiers slide down ropes," the report stated.

*"Because the V-22's large propeller nacelles create a blind spot in the rear of the aircraft for the pilot, the crew chief must visually verify that all is clear on the ground or ship deck before the aircraft lands," the report noted. "However, a common complaint of crew chiefs was that small windows and the seating arrangement of troops did not allow them to see clearly the landing area, putting the aircraft at risk for hitting obstacles on or near the ground."

*In the cabin where the Osprey would carry Marines and others into combat, heating and air conditioning are inadequate, according to Marines who have ridden in the aircraft. In intense heat, the cabin may become so sweltering that troops become ill, the report asserted.

Ospreys are made by a joint effort of Bell Helicopter Textron and the Boeing Co. in a program that has continued for decades. Worth an eventual $48 billion, the Osprey must pass operational testing and evaluation from January through April next year before the Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy permit Bell-Boeing to enter full-rate production. About one-third of those dollars already have been spent.

"Sources tell POGO that problems with downwash, visibility, and emergency egress still are as problematic today as they were when the survey was conducted," the report stated.

"The rush to test and deploy the V-22 Osprey has clouded the judgment of the Marines top brass,'' said Eric Miller, POGO senior defense investigator. "They have shown little regard for the Marines who will have to risk their lives flying and riding in an aircraft wrought with design, safety, and comfort flaws."

POGO asserts that the flight-testing program has focused on changes in the aircraft design and materials, while not focusing on the Marines and other service personnel who would have to fly or ride in the aircraft.

"Although program and contractor officials have boasted widely of the yet-to-be-realized promise of the new technology, they have said little about the aircraft's ability to comfortably, and safely, accommodate the occupants and troops traveling inside the cabin," the POGO report stated.

Some of the information on the Osprey used in the POGO report came from the Red Ribbon Panel, a group of retired and active engineers and pilots coordinated by retired Air Force Col. Harry Dunn, who was a flight test manager and pilot for the HH-3 "Jolly Green Giant" rescue helicopters used in Vietnam.

A spokesman for the Osprey program, Ward Carroll, had no immediate response to the POGO report findings, aside from noting that each factor discussed in the POGO report will be considered thoroughly during operational testing and evaluation of the Osprey next year.

If the Osprey doesn't pass those tests, it won't enter full rate production, Carroll said.

"If a safety-of-flight risk" is discovered, the Osprey will "be deemed unsuitable for operational use" by the three military services, he said. "Nothing is finished [in revamping the Osprey] until OpEval is finished."

"It appears at this point that the program is on the path to success, but we await that final decision" at the end of operational testing and evaluation before drawing any final conclusion on the safety and suitability for military use of the aircraft, he said.

At the same time, he noted that relying on impressions of the Osprey gathered in 2000 or earlier doesn't relate to the reworked Osprey as it is today.

The Osprey must be judged as it is since it returned to flight May 29, 2002, he said.

For example, air conditioning ducting has been reworked and air flow rates into the cabin have improved during the flight testing program, he said.

Yes BV that quote says it all.

But replacing the CH 46 with S-92 or MH-60s doesnt do it. The MH-60 has range and internal/external payload issues that dont meet all the USN Utility Helo requirements once filled by the UH-46 and UH-3H Sea King. And fall even shorter of USMC requirements now filled by the CH-46.

The only real replacement IMHO for the CH-46 is modernised new build CH-53E Super Stallions. Some in the USN/USMC agree and have for more than a decade. But the promise of Osprey(especially as regards speed and range)seems to have overshadowed all else.

The V-22 is all but useless for SPECOPS.

It's no good for fast roping, lethal for parachuting, and causes IMMENSE brownout that can be seen for over a mile when it lands.

WTF would SPECOPS do with that piece of shit?

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

I can see a few civilian uses for it(picture a business jet you can land on the roof), but the marines should cut it. I should include this in a letter I'm working on to my Congressmen.

"Some pup"
Nickname by Fenderstrat72

_________________
Evil is evil, no matter how small.

<i>I have some comments. My apologies to those who have heard them before. The tiltrotor is not the way I would have proceeded to give the Marines what they need to fight. However, it is finally ready to show its stuff. The V-22 is delivering more than 90% of promised capability and enough is enough. Give them to the services and see how well they help the fight. There will be more accidents and incidents. Everyone should be vigilant. But the vehicle is tested and proven well enough to be used operationally.</i>



"The rush to test and deploy the V-22 Osprey has clouded the judgment of the Marines top brass,'' said Eric Miller, POGO senior defense investigator. "They have shown little regard for the Marines who will have to risk their lives flying and riding in an aircraft wrought with design, safety, and comfort flaws."

<i>Rushed it. That's a joke right? POGO is a project killing organization. They should have gone all out to kill this program 15 years ago when it could do some good. It is too late now because all the money is spent and the thing is working well enough. It makes me angry that POGO can accuse others of "little regard". I can assure you that is not the case. Many of their claimed design, safety and comfort flaws are a matter of opinion, or a deliberate trade-off.</i>

"Sources tell POGO that problems with downwash, visibility, and emergency egress still are as problematic today as they were when the survey was conducted," the report stated."

<i>These criticisms are part of the basic character of the tiltrotor design concept since the first line went on paper. These controversies will never go away. "Sources" will always be telling disagreeable things, especially for crew station/human factors things. Every crewman has an opinion about the "man/machine interface" and how the designers screwed-up. It's a given, and that's fine. Some of the gripes are justified. However, these battles were fought over 15 years ago and the losers are still complaining. Give it a rest.</i>

The top brass in their giddy quest to make the Sci-Fi channel have put all Marines lives on the line by wasting time and money on this platform where as the CH-46E's could all be sitting in the Desert right now with brand new shiny S-92 or MH-60S's filling the ramps and decks in the Corps' ranks as we speak...

<i>That "lives on the line" quip is a cheap shot. If you want to save lives, keep everyone out of rotorcraft, period. As a class of vehicles, they are death traps, IMHO. The V-22 is not any worse than a CH-46. In return we get new capability. And yet another Apache crashed in GA a couple of weeks ago. Anybody know what went wrong? May I also say that if there was no V-22, POGO would be saying similar derogatory things about the S-92 and H-60. Their object is that the Marines get nothing.</i>


The V-22 is all but useless for SPECOPS.
<i>I don't know? It flies further and faster. That must be useful for somebody.</i>

It's no good for fast roping,...
<i>Fast roping is pretty dangerous, no matter what. I wish there was another way. If it is necessary, then do the best you can. If it is still too dangerous, use a helicopter to do it.</i>

...lethal for parachuting, and causes IMMENSE brownout that can be seen for over a mile when it lands.
<i> I was under the impression that brownouts happen with all helicopters to some degree? If parachuting is the desired method of insertion, may I suggest a C-130 or a Shorts Skyvan. (Doctor it hurts when I do this. Well don't do that!)</i>

WTF would SPECOPS do with that piece of shit?
<i>How about flying at 275 kts with 10000 lbs payload after a vertical takeoff? That's pretty good. Let somebody have a shot at new tactics. Try it, you'll like it.</i>



THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"The F-22...It's the poo"

_________________
????

Ever seen Brown or White out from a Pave hawk or a pave Low. IT is just as debilitating. They have crashed several because of it.

I remember several standowns for the HH-60's alone in the army. Guess who came up with a solution? The airforce did after a string of accidents at Keflavik and the Arctic. The solution as it has always been was maintaining the heading in a landing. Crew coordination and avionics

The gunships have Fore and AFT Slip indicators in thir HUDS. HH60's and Pave Lows have it in their mfd's to help them correct their position.

Another thing that was a big complaint from the nay sayers was the Vortex ring state. Turns out many helicopters have this problem that forces them to vacuum into the ground. Pulling solid pitch doesnt recover, its useles. This was a problem effecting ch53's for a very long time. the solution. marines learned to manipulate the slip to force the velocity change in the rotorwash. This allowed them to leave the recycled air.

CH46's were the V22 of the 60's, 70's and 80's. I recal in 83 refereing to them as SeaMagnets. Their was a string of accidents back then. Many helicopters after taking offf from the LHA's wnet right into the Ocean. the solution was in how the approach, and takeoff was setup, parreleling the boat on take off and hovering sideways off the boat, but not until out of ground effect. The LHA also had to change their Course routing for the wind to allow airflow to travle at oblique angles to the deck. This kept the Ground effect pushed diagnolly across the deck, and allowed the Helicopter to be placed in translational lift on takeoff.

In the 50/60's we killed over 130 USAF Test pilots alone. trying to prove the concept of fighters, Accident rates were so high we were buying new fighter designs to refield squadrons at the rate of 2-5 years until 1975.

So if we look back at the History of Test and procurement. Theirs plenty of blood to go around, and reminders from time to time in the operational units, of how inherintly dangerous flying machines are. our way through this is flight testing, evaluation, procedural change and technology updates to the system.

Next people are going to bitch once these MV22's are in operational use that they are unsafe against ground fire. The truth is. this aircraft can fly at the altitudes of the C130 and eliminate the concern for beach point defenses in the Low-Medium threat regimes.

Now in the argument for GOPLAT operations: and rappelling 2 marine Special operations Units are testing new rigs and techniques for Air Assualt, CSAR, and HALO/HAHO operations.





"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

So if we look back at the History of Test and procurement. There is plenty of blood to go around, and reminders from time to time in the operational units, of how inherintly dangerous flying machines are. <b>Our way through this is flight testing, evaluation, procedural change and technology updates to the system.</b>

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

That's what I should have said. I missed another opportunity to sound smart. I'm working on it.



THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"The F-22...It's the poo"

_________________
????

The V-22 is meeting 90% of the REWRITTEN specs....it is NOWHERE NEAR 90% of the original contract specs.

It does not work 'well enough', it is a disaster waiting to happen(again).

Ps....the USMC will save 30billion by not buying these roaches.

Mudd, i can't believe you are defending this fuckup of an aircraft...

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

Too bad snipe. You dont have the qualifications to understand any of what I say. I am not going to sugar coat the facts. This is the hard fact about need and deliverance. Need was expressed and no other manufacturer could deliver.

I have expertise in this area. Apparently if you were king for a day. We would never fly, travel to the Moon, or drive vehicles over the speed of a running horse. Their is no comfy pillow in this buisness.

The money is spent, Congress and the military will save face and put this aircraft in motion, in service. National security in the pacific and africa require this concept. The MV22 was the only concept to meet the need. IF your looking for answers i suggest you point your angst at the yellow belly cowards that would not meet this challenge. the military made a request for technology. Bell Textron Boeing, was the only one to meet this challange. Where was Sikorsky? Sikorsky flat out ignored the requirement and tried to propose a helicopter that could not meet this envelope. Where was the Big 3 in the crystal palace? (LOCKMART, NORTHRUP-GRUMMAN,)

The truth is, The Marines and the Navy's expeditionary strike group hinges on this specific aircraft.

For what we are asking the marines to continue to do in a Littoral amphibous and Vertical lift envelopment in todays age. the MV22 is the only aircraft that can meet that charter from a surface ship.

The Expeditionary Strike group is our only hope in the pacific theater for immediate response without requiring steam time to todays launch point.

I can understand that you are dissapointed with the shortcomings in development of this technology. What you fail to have knowledge on is the realities of Getting a concept from paper to service. Every single aircraft had teething problems. Several of these had teething problems and will have teething problems for the remainder of their service life. It is up to the Military to devise tactics, concepts and training to get past these issues so that they are not prohibitive to the mission.

Being stuck on Current methods of employment is preventing growth and capability.

One this is very certain. In todays age we will continue to draw down on foriegn base footprint, and defense rights agreements with foriegn countries. Our own allies are continually retreating from supporting or national defense needs.

Carrier deck is our only flexability

MV22 is the only solution and money pit that we have. They are working out the bugs. Right now that is the cheapest option.

To re-enter new designs is not cost prohibitive at this time. To do so would would bring this whole concept to 6 times its cost to date. and very overdue in defense needs

Their is no manufacturer today with the capabilty or finances to provide a replacement challenger.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

Mudd, help me out:

There is a phrase rotary-winged pilots use for what you described earlier in your first post. In addition, it's why you'll never see helicopters landing completely straight down.

It's "settling with the..." something.
Are you familiar with this term?

Ground Effect?





"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

I believe it is called <i>submitting with the air</i>.

*Well, whatever it is, it really explained to me the stumbling points of the Osprey and flying rotary wings.


Edited by - tritonal on Jul 20 2004 1:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Mudd, help me out:

There is a phrase rotary-winged pilots use for what you described earlier in your first post. In addition, it's why you'll never see helicopters landing completely straight down.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Perhaps transitional lift?

ATTACK!

translational lift is well above landing speeds.

It is when a lift vector converts to a planform.

"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The V-22 is meeting 90% of the REWRITTEN specs....it is NOWHERE NEAR 90% of the original contract specs.

It does not work 'well enough', it is a disaster waiting to happen(again).

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I don't know what you mean Snipe. Could you be more specific? In the past I have followed up on published criticisms and found them to be unfounded or distorted. Yes, I wasted some hours chasing down that Carlton Meyer distortion. In the end I was satisfied that he was settling some old score I am not interested in. Much of other contentious articles on the V-22 "lies" were formed around some briefings that claimed things like the V-22 is twice as fast as helicopters and can fly twice as far..blah, blah. We all know that comparisons can be twisted if you use your head. When comparing the V-22 to the CH-53E, always compare max payload and internal volume. Don't forget to compare CH-53E ferry range (no payload) to V-22 typical mission range. Oh, and maximum external load is also a good one. Only the Russians can beat the mighty CH-53E. It helps (the H-53 and H-60) to quote maximum speed in mph and V-22 in knots, knowing people will confuse the two. It is also a good ploy to compare the H-60 max payload (which has no range) to the typical V-22 payload (which has a 500 radius at 230 knots). If you want to make the V-22 look bad, please don't compare it to the gross weight/speed restricted CH-46's. That would be deceitful because the V-22 would be capable of roughly twice the payload at twice the speed. We don't want that. And for good measure, have the GAO determine how many "troops" can fit in a V-22. After all, they are professional (bean) counters. If currently equipped Marines take up more space than their predecessors, then the V-22 has room for less of them. All vehicles have that problem, don't they. How many equipped Marines can fit in a humvee? On the other side of the size issue, I'll bet someone soon says that the V-22 is no good because the crew station controls and switches are out of reach of the mythical the 5%ile female pilot.

Whenever I followed-up on a charge, there was something that made me suspicious. For instance, for a while there was a clamour for the V-22 to demonstrate the 10000 lb external load haul for 50 miles. They didn't do it immediately, so the critics claimed the reason was that it was a cover-up for a deficiency. They did end up demonstrating it, but the legacy articles are still out there hammering away. The hysteria for cancellation got so shrill, I think there was a site that inadvertently criticized itself. They were claiming the hydraulic tubes on the V-22 were dangerous in one part of the article and in another part of the article they were praising the speed of F-14 development relative to the V-22 (which is true). The irony was that they ignored the spectacular crash of F-14 #1 on the second flight, due to a hydraulic line rupture. They inadvertently made the case for pressing on in the face of failure.

The bottom line from my investigations into the charges of V-22 performance shortfalls was that none of the serious charges were really true and sometimes irrelevant (e.g. it can't autorotate). I am now a defender of the aircraft. Well, that overstates it. I am opposed to the people like Meyer who are distorting the truth, and I can admire a successful (if not timely) solution of a difficult problem.

I don't have access to the contract specs, only press releases. I still say the actual performance is near enough to the original specs for me. I'll also make the generalization that no miltary aircraft (or system) meets even 95% of the original contract specs when certified operational, not the A-10, F-15, F-14 nor the F-22, or C-17, none, nada, zero. They always end up facing what they can get, and they make a decision. Is it still a useful weapon or not? If not, then stop and explain to the taxpayer how you wasted all his money. If it is disappointing, but still useful, then salvage what you can.

Finally, it is obvious to me it is not fruitful to compare point performance of the V-22 and current helicopters. The V-22 shouldn't be operated like helicopters are today. It is too different. The cost is another matter. That is a huge disappointment. As expected, it is the pricey way to go. Critics should concentrate on whether the operational opportunities of the V-22 justify the cost. I'm done doing that. It's too late. Get on with it.

THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"The F-22...It's the poo"



Edited by - a10stress on Jul 20 2004 3:04 PM

_________________
????

"Too bad snipe. You dont have the qualifications to understand any of what I say."


You're right, what the hell would a grunt know about air assaults?


"I am not going to sugar coat the facts."

No, just ignore them apparently.

"This is the hard fact about need and deliverance. Need was expressed and no other manufacturer could deliver."

HARD FACT: THERE IS NO NEED FOR OSPREY.

"I have expertise in this area. Apparently if you were king for a day. We would never fly, travel to the Moon, or drive vehicles over the speed of a running horse. Their is no comfy pillow in this buisness."

If i were king for a day we certainly wouldn't be doing any of that in vehicles with a nearly 2 decades long history of mismanagement, gross safetly flaws, endlessly watered down requirements, and a MTBF rate of 2.1 hours.

Apparently, you feel differently. Good for you. I've flown in enough helos to know that INCREASING their vulnerability(which is EXACTLY what Osprey does) is a stupid fucking idea.


"The money is spent, Congress and the military will save face and put this aircraft in motion, in service."

Re-read the article, and pay attention this time. Only about 33% of the total program funds have been spent.

<b>QUOTE:Ospreys are made by a joint effort of Bell Helicopter Textron and the Boeing Co. in a program that has continued for decades. Worth an eventual $48 billion, the Osprey must pass operational testing and evaluation from January through April next year before the Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy permit Bell-Boeing to enter full-rate production. About one-third of those dollars already have been spent.</b>

"National security in the pacific and africa require this concept."

No they don't, period.

Get that? NO THEY DON'T.

I will happily supply a link to a retired E-7 Marine Raider who has just this very night opined at some length why OMFTS- the doctrine that drives Osprey, is fatally flawed, and why Osprey addresses issues the USMC doesn't face.

But i can sum it up for you here in one word- Logistics.

OMFTS logistical system is inherently unsound, that is a fact.
Therefore, there is no need for Osprey...also a fact.

"The truth is, The Marines and the Navy's expeditionary strike group hinges on this specific aircraft."

Sure it does. Like the US Army's attack helo doctrine relied on the RAH-66, right? The US Army is now going to fall apart because Crusader and Commanche were cancelled...not.

"For what we are asking the marines to continue to do in a Littoral amphibous and Vertical lift envelopment in todays age. the MV22 is the only aircraft that can meet that charter from a surface ship."

There are a myriad of aircraft that can transport Marines great distances, and in large numbers. The speed only matters in multi-wave operations, and the OMFTS logistics system does not allow for sufficient sustainment rates to be delivered for such operations to succeed against any kind of real opposition.

The fact is the USMC still plans to put the majority of it's forces ashore the old fashioned way, from the sea. AAAV, a hugely expensive project in it's own right is proof of this.

LCAC is the single most important tool for todays USMC(besides the Marines themselves), not Osprey....hell not any aircraft at all.

"The Expeditionary Strike group is our only hope in the pacific theater for immediate response without requiring steam time to todays launch point."

That's just bullshit. We can immediately respond quite fine at massive distances using existing helos now. The problem is, and even with Osprey would still be- supplying the troops once they're there.

There are also all those shiny new Stryker Bdes as well. A Stryker Bde(or even a Bn) brings a hell of a lot more to the table than any solely air inserted Marine force envisaged under OMFTS does, and a C-130 is one hell of a lot faster than an Osprey.

That's just another one of those facts you seem to think i can't grasp.

The whole idea behind the Stryker Bdes is to do what the Osprey tries to do, but to do it with a mechanized force, not a leg or motor force(which Osprey is restricted to).

Then there are those units called the 75th Ranger Rgt, 173d Airborne Bde and 82d Airborne division that are also excellent 911 forces.

We have Rapid Deployment Forces out the wazoo now.

And assuming there is a USMC taskforce nearby, what emergency exactly is it that 2 hours response time is too long, but 1:15 minutes isn't?

The overwhelming majority of military missions are planned well in advance, and amphibious operations are right at the top of that list. SPECOPS types are the only ones that'd typicly launch that fast from the word GO, and the Osprey is extremely limited for most typical SPECOPS insertions.

"I can understand that you are dissapointed with the shortcomings in development of this technology. What you fail to have knowledge on is the realities of Getting a concept from paper to service. Every single aircraft had teething problems. Several of these had teething problems and will have teething problems for the remainder of their service life. It is up to the Military to devise tactics, concepts and training to get past these issues so that they are not prohibitive to the mission."

I can relate to all of that, and i agree 100%, the system is all F'ed up. However, Osprey is not an aircraft that answers a standing question, but an aircraft that attempts to answer a question no one has asked.

The USMC has REAL needs for Tanks, landing craft, Helos, and Fighters, and they have extreme budget constrictions on top of it. They need all that stuff. We're not talking minor neccesity, but real need. Their M-1A1(pre HA models) are actually getting kind of obsolete on the world stage, their helo fleet is ancient, and their fighters are falling apart, and they don't have enough of them(it's actually the USN that doesn't have enough of them, and the USMC is taking up their slack- which leaves them short). Their AMTRAKS are vietnam era relics.

The Corps are being buried in ownership costs for all these systems, and every day of delay only makes it worse.

A newer version of the MH-53 would easily cover all the Marines realworld amphibious air assault needs, and do it a hell of a lot more safely and RELIABLY, and a whole hell of a lot cheaper, and could've been doing so for many years already.

Another thing to consider is that when your doctrine's LOGPLAN is flawed to begin with the last thing you need is to have to rely on unreliable heavy lift transports.

"Being stuck on Current methods of employment is preventing growth and capability."

The current methods of employment work very, very well.

"Their is no manufacturer today with the capabilty or finances to provide a replacement challenger."

Probably because tilt-rotors don't solve any problems we need solving, but add a lot of problems to doing things we can already do more safely. They're faster and can fly higher, but that's it. To do that you hav to spend about 3x the cost that you do to do it with a state of the art helo. High altitude capability isn't exactly something one needs in a combat helo, and i submit that a MANPADS would tell very little difference between 150kts and 250kts. And a Helo is one hell of a lot more manueverable than the Osprey, especially on the all-critical insertion approach.

Osprey has had what, 20 some years to show what it can do.

IMHO it has shown me plenty.

It is time to cancel the Osprey, and invest that money elsewhere.




"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

"just the response i was looking for <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>"


"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

"I don't know what you mean Snipe. Could you be more specific?"

The USMC specified NBC filtration system has been deleted to save weight.
Fact.

The USMC specified nose gun turret has been deleted to save weight.
Fact.

The USMC specified waist hoist has been deleted to save weight.
Fact.

The USMC specified rate of descent has been revised lower to keep the MV-22 from crashing and killing everyone aboard.
Fact.

The new Marine mandated rate of descent(and forward airspeed) is significantly lower than many contemporary helos.
Fact.

Coming slow into an LZ while under fire is far more likely to get you killed.
Fact.

The Osprey is far more susceptible to battle-damage than a conventional helicopter. It has no armor whatsoever.
Fact.

The Osprey can't autorotate in the event of loss of power or one of the nacelles. That means everyone aboard is fucked up.
Fact.

The MV-22 has consistently fell well under it's required MBTF rate, and in the recent tests has still had reliability problems.
Fact.

The hydraulic system on the MV-22 runs at immense pressure, so the USMC mandated a certain thickness of plumbing be used. The specified plumbing was too heavy, so thin-walled(and very expensive) titanium plumbing was substituted to save weight.
Fact.

The new plumbing was directly responsible for the loss of an MV-22 with all hands.
Allegation by a USMC test pilot.

I can continue, if you like...



"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

I'm glad i didn't dissapoint you Senior Mudd.

I still dig ya bro, no tilt-rotor POS is coming between us.

LOL.


"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

"The USMC specified NBC filtration system has been deleted to save weight.
<i>Does any other helicopter have NBC protection now or is this one of the poison pills inserted into the requirements. If the NBC features on the F-22 were also relaxed, I guess we'll have to cancel that too.</i>

<i>The USMC specified nose gun turret has been deleted to save weight.
I believe it was deleted to save cost. It was going to take too long to engineer it and the program was being starved for cash anyway. It was a conscious decision to concentrate on the transport version in a hostile budget environment. A gun may go on it eventually.</i>

The USMC specified waist hoist has been deleted to save weight.
<i>Again, they did not want to take the time and money to solve hoisting problems. It was secondary to the primary transport mission, and may be especially problematic for a tiltrotor</i>

The USMC specified rate of descent has been revised lower to keep the MV-22 from crashing and killing everyone aboard.
<i>I think all aircraft have flight zones where strict proceedures are vitally important to survival, especially helicopters. The V-22 has future potential for flight control software mods that improve things.</i>

The new Marine mandated rate of descent(and forward airspeed) is significantly lower than many contemporary helos.
<i>OK, this is important only for the next subject</i>

Coming slow into an LZ while under fire is far more likely to get you killed.
<i>Indeed! Let's be realistic here. Unless you surprise the enemy (and they must be deaf and blind) a helicopter assault has bad odds, no matter what the flight restrictions on the aircraft. It is amazing to me they have any success. I can see by the strong language expressed by experts that no one is willing to take any more risk during helicopter assaults. The risk is already beyond tolerance. They are totally correct. Avoid this tactic. If you can only do the job this way, send the bravest volunteers in a CH-53E.</i>


The Osprey is far more susceptible to battle-damage than a conventional helicopter. It has no armor whatsoever.
<i>Yes it is more vulnerable in helicopter mode. The whole concept of a complex tiltrotor made of brittle composites says "stay out of harm's way". However, helicopters are also more vulnerable than fixed wing, even without the bullets and APG's flying around. You're right here. It's a tradeoff. The local armor will come with time, probably after the official empty weight is established.</i>

The Osprey can't autorotate in the event of loss of power or one of the nacelles. That means everyone aboard is fucked up.
<i>It can't autorotate, but it can probably glide to a crash landing. Tuboprops can't autorotate either. In the flight regime where the V-22 is flying like a helicopter (low and slow), conventional helicopters probably can't autorotate either. The V-22 does have one engine out capability so I am assuming your comment is meant to say that if one of the rotors is damaged, "that's all she wrote". Yup, that is the case, but all helicopters have that problem, don't they?.</i>

The MV-22 has consistently fallen well under it's required MTBF rate, and in the recent tests has still had reliability problems.
<i>I'm not informed about this. I guess I just have faith that the reliability will improve with the adjustments that come with experience. We won't know the real story until a million flight hours are done. You could be right here too.</i>

The hydraulic system on the MV-22 runs at immense pressure, so the USMC mandated a certain thickness of plumbing be used. The specified plumbing was too heavy, so thin-walled(and very expensive) titanium plumbing was substituted to save weight.
<i>Now you're into something I can use personal expertise to answer. I'm glad to do it because it illustrates how technical things get mangled in the non technical world. From the beginning, the V-22 designers chose a higher pressure hydraulic system in order to save weight and space. Higher pressures require compensations, but it was just another favorable trade they needed to take advantage of if they were going to make this tiltrotor monstrosity work. The USMC should not directly mandate the wall thickness of hydraulic tubing. I think this is misinformation. Performance is what matters. "Immense Pressure" is not a term I would use for the V-22 hydraulic tubes. OK, 5000 psi (is that it?) is higher than most inventory aircraft (about 3000 psi) and also higher than newer designs like the F-22 (4000 psi). Here's my own experience. The operating pressure in the tube is frequently not the design driver. If the tubes are in a high vibration zone (pretty much everywhere in a helicopter dontcha think? ), it is the vibration environment that dictates things. If you don't get the support system right, even low pressure steel tubes can fail from occillatory stresses or chafing from large deflections hitting hard structure. Small details like the way the tubes are supported and connected are more important than the operating pressure. A tube failure can be the result of an inadequate design of a support bracket, unrelated to the tube material. Maybe there's a pressure high enough to dominate all this, but it is not at 5000 psi. We should be able to handle it. The consequences of getting a leak in a 5000 psi system are another thing, but that should be handled by the hydraulic system designer with the right redundancy and isolation valves and such. As far as the material of the tube is concerned, I am a bit out of my element but I have an opinion on that too. Steel tubes are easier to deal with because the manufacturing methods seem to have been worked out (welding, bending, flaring etc.) Off the shelf fittings and connectors are available everywhere. They seem to tolerate chafing and small dents better (my opinion). Supports can often be wider spaced because steel is stiffer than titanium. But, they are about double the weight of the titanium tubes. Even though the manufacturing details are not as mature for titanium, everyone is going to ti because of the weight. Because demand is growing for ti tubes the cost has come down. We even use ti tubes for avionics cooing runs because they are less trouble (than aluminum)in the long run. The cost argument does not wash for a vertical takeoff aircraft. Weight savings is worth more when you go vertical.</i>

The new plumbing was directly responsible for the loss of an MV-22 with all hands.
Allegation by a USMC test pilot.
<i>I think this is more than an allegation. Hasn't it been established that a vibrating tube in a tightly packed nacelle was banging into structure and it made a hole in it? Hydraulic system failures have always had serious consequences. The assembled dignitaries for the second flight of the F-14 on Dec. 30, 1970 could attest to that. If i'm not mistaken, an inadequate support spacing on a titanium tube run, combined with a flawed hyraulic system redundancy, set-up the dramatic demonstration of the Martin-Baker company product. Progess is often marked by smoking holes in the ground.</i>

I can continue, if you like...
<i>Please do. It's a friendly debate. Fortunately, neither one of us has a say in the outcome. We are pawns in the hands of the powerfull</i>





THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"The F-22...It's the poo"

Edited by - a10stress on Jul 21 2004 07:55 AM

Edited by - a10stress on Jul 22 2004 11:14 AM

_________________
????

"Does any other helicopter have NBC protection now"

Yep.

"or is this one of the poison pills inserted into the requirements."

That was a requirement from day 1, and has been dropped to keep the program alive- not added to kill it.

"he NBC features on the F-22 were also relaxed. I guess we'll have to cancel that too."

NBC is a lot more important for an asset that will be landing in possible biochem zones than one that is 30,000 feet above it. I'm sure you'd agree.

" believe it was deleted to save cost."

Nope, weight.

"t was going to take too long to engineer it"

Too long to engineer a part that's been a regular feature of armed rotor powered aircraft since the mid 60s? We had powered radar-aimed turrets on B-29s in WWII. That's a pretty lame argument.

"nd the program was being starved for cash anyway."

You're kidding me......right?


"t was a conscious decision to concentrate on the transport version in a hostile budget environment."

BS, the nose turret WAS INTENDED for the transport version. There is no 'armed version' on the books or even contemplated.

"A gun may go on it eventually."

Nope. The USMC and Bell have both publicly admitted the V-22 is too heavy for a nose turret. This is old news, circa 2001.

"Again, they did not want to take the time and money to solve hoisting problems. It was secondary to the primary transport mission, and may be especially problematic for a tiltrotor"

No, it was an original design specification, not an addon. The only hoisting problem is that the Osprey is way overweight....still.


"I think all aircraft have flight zones where strict proceedures are vitally important to survival, especially helicopters. The V-22 has future potential for flight control software mods that improve things."

The MV-22s is far more restricted than any helo currently in use by the US military. It's descent rate blows, quite frankly.

"Indeed! Let's be realistic here. Unless you surprise the enemy (and they must be deaf and blind) a helicopter assault has bad odds, no matter what the flight restrictions on the aircraft."

The slower you ingress/egress, the worse those odds get Stress. Helos are already very vulnerable to ground fire(even light weapons), the MV-22 cranks that up another notch. About the only common battlefield weapon that isn't a legitimate threat to the Osprey is a pistol.

I am not exaggerating.


"It is amazing to me they have any success. I can see by the strong language expressed by experts that no one is willing to take any more risk during helicopter assaults. The risk is already beyond tolerance. They are totally correct. Avoid this tactic. If you can only do the job this way, send the bravest volunteers in a CH-53E."

I believe the last part of your statement is my entire point. The MV-22 is a COMBAT assault transport, not a cargo craft. It is intended to be used in LZs, hot, cold, and otherwise.

It is a deathtrap.


"Yes it is more vulnerable in helicopter mode. The whole concept of a complex tiltrotor made of brittle composites says "stay out of harm's way". However, helicopters are also more vulnerable than fixed wing, even without the bullets and APG's flying around. You're right here. It's a tradeoff. The local armor will come with time, probably after the official empty weight is established."

It most certainly is more vulnerable....glad you agree.
It is also a spanking huge target.

"t can't autorotate, but it can probably glide to a crash landing."

How is it going to glide- and how far- when it's restricted to a forward airspeed of 50kts on ingress/egress while descending/ascending?

Gliding to a crash landing is another way of saying it will crash.

Oh, and what if it's hovering at the time?

Ooops.

Tuboprops can't autorotate either.

That's pretty irrelevant to the subject at hand my friend.

"In the flight regime where the V-22 is flying like a helicopter (low and slow), conventional helicopters probably can't autorotate either."

I believe that statement to be quite incorrect. Huey pilots in Vietnam routinely autorotated after getting hit on ingress/egress from hot LZs.

"The V-22 does have one engine out capability so I am assuming your comment is meant to say that if one of the rotors is damaged,"

Yep.


"that's all she wrote". Yup, that is the case, but all helicopters have that problem, don't they?."

No. A conventional helo can lose it's tail rotor and still auto-rotate.

"I'm not informed about this. I guess I just have faith that the reliability will improve with the adjustments that come with experience. We won't know the real story until a million flight hours are done. You could be right here too."

There's a lot of info out there on this one. Just a matter of googling it. The MV-22 has been notoriously unreliable so far(and so far is a span of time covering a flight test program of more than a decade).

"Now you're into something I can use personal expertise to answer. I'm glad to do it because it illustrates how technical things get mangled in the non technical world. From the beginning, the V-22 designers chose a higher pressure hydraulic system in order to save weight and space. Higher pressures require compensations, but it was just another favorable trade they needed to take advantage of if they were going to make this tiltrotor monstrosity work. The USMC should not directly mandate the wall thickness of hydraulic tubing. I think this is misinformation. Performance is what matters. "Immense Pressure" is not a term I would use for the V-22 hydraulic tubes. OK, 5000 psi (is that it?) is higher than most inventory aircraft (about 3000 psi) and also higher than newer designs like the F-22 (4000 psi). Here's my own experience. The operating pressure in the tube is frequently not the design driver. If the tubes are in a high vibration zone (pretty much everywhere in a helicopter dontcha think? ), it is the vibration environment that dictates things. If you don't get the support system right, even low pressure steel tubes can fail from occillatory stresses or chafing from large deflections hitting hard structure. Small details like the way the tubes are supported and connected are more important than the operating pressure. A tube failure can be the result of an inadequate design of a support bracket, unrelated to the tube material. Maybe there's a pressure high enough to dominate all this, but it is not at 5000 psi. We should be able to handle it. The consequences of getting a leak in a 5000 psi system are another thing, but that should be handled by the hydraulic system designer with the right redundancy and isolation valves and such. As far as the material of the tube is concerned, I am a bit out of my element but I have an opinion on that too. Steel tubes are easier to deal with because the manufacturing methods seem to have been worked out (welding, bending, flaring etc.) Off the shelf fittings and connectors are available everywhere. They seem to tolerate chafing and small dents better (my opinion). Supports can often be wider spaced because steel is stiffer than titanium. But, they are about double the weight of the titanium tubes. Even though the manufacturing details are not as mature for titanium, everyone is going to ti because of the weight. Because demand is growing for ti tubes the cost has come down. We even use ti tubes for avionics cooing runs because they are less trouble (than aluminum)in the long run. The cost argument does not wash for a vertical takeoff aircraft. Weight savings is worth more when you go vertical."

The MV-22 was(and still is) grossly overweight compared to it's specified weight. It has been widely reported that the hydraulic lines were switched to lightweight titanium to save weight. If all the reports are wrong, then i'll concede the point.

I believe the hyd. system of the Osprey runs considerably higher than 5,000psi. More like 10,000- but i'm going on foggy memories here. The Osprey has so many problems it's hard to keep them all straight.

One of the USMC pilots involved with the Osprey blamed that tubing directly for the cause of a crash that killed all hands.


"I think this is more than an allegation. Hasn't it been established that a vibrating tube in a tightly packed nacelle was banging into structure and it made a hole in it? Hydraulic system failures have always had serious consequences. The assembled dignitaries for the second flight of the F-14 on Dec. 30, 1970 could attest to that. If i'm not mistaken, an inadequate support spacing on a titanium tube run, combined with a flawed hyraulic system redundancy, set-up the dramatic demonstration of the Martin-Baker company product. Progess is often marked by smoking holes in the ground."

That is plausible, but the pilot in question seems to think it was that the tubes were too thin, so they were overly susceptible to chaffing/etc.(IIRC)

"Please do. It's a friendly debate. Fortunately, neither one of us has a say in the outcome. We are pawns in the hands of the powerful"

For the sake of my tired fingers i will continue with my trump card.

$105 million per copy.

Say, that's the cost of 10 modernized CH-53Es, or 4 new build MH-53Es, isn't it?

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction"

Ronald Reagan

Sniper, you can really phillibuster.
Run for Congress <img src=icon_smile_clown.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Sniper, you can really phillibuster.
Run for Congress <img src=icon_smile_clown.gif border=0 align=middle>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

He's too ugly.

Oh, wait, Klinton's wife ran and won. Disregard my last statement.

ATTACK!