Osprey's Fatal Flaw

[Kelly M. Lea]

You all know that I really don't know enough about the bird to comment on this article, but it really is something to have flying over your house!


Defense News
July 7, 2003
Pg. 29

Osprey's Fatal Flaw

Despite Upgrades, Tiltrotor Is Vulnerable in Combat

By Lee Gaillard

A longtime skeptic of the V-22 Osprey program, Edward “Pete” Aldridge, gave the nascent tiltrotor craft a goodbye present just before he retired as Pentagon acquisition chief. Aldridge declared that he had “sufficient confidence in the [V-22] for safety and reliability that we can continue” with the program, and added that the Pentagon would likely up its planned buy from 11 per year to 14 or 15 by 2005.

But even if a year of successful flight tests converted the departing skeptic into a cautious supporter, the Osprey cannot entirely escape a potentially fatal conundrum.

It’s not for lack of trying. The Osprey’s protracted development — it has been 14 years since it first flew — has already caused the tiltrotorcraft to miss the 1991 Gulf War, counterterrorist operations in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq. It could have been extremely useful in the latter two conflicts.

Overhauled and re-engineered, it resumed flight testing last year. Results have validated mandatory modifications: hydraulic line separation to prevent chafing-induced leaks; rewriting of problematic flight-control software; vast improvements in maintainability. Airframe and vital systems have hit new marks for safety and reliability. So the problem is no longer one of systems design and production line quality control. On takeoff and in forward flight, this radical tiltrotor does beautifully, offering twice the speed and five times the range of current transport helicopters.

The malevolent Catch-22 lurks in battlefield aerodynamics and the risks encountered by a revolutionary aircraft attempting transformation of military assault operations. No matter how well-built, each Osprey delivering troops to heavily defended landing zones will court disaster.

Why? If it comes in too slowly, it will get badly shot up — like that flight of more than 30 AH-64 Apaches in Iraq — or worse, shot down. If, on the other hand, its vertical descent is too rapid, it will crash and troops will still die. It’s that simple.

The crucial issue is that during rapid-descent troop insertion, Ospreys will be just marginally controllable. The problems show up in several ways, including:

*When engine/proprotor units rotate from horizontal to vertical, powerful prop blasts pummel upper wing surfaces at 90 degrees, creating massive drag, degrading thrust, and generating subwing turbulence.

*Unlike CH-46 helicopters, which have rotors at nose and tail, the V-22’s wingtip-mounted proprotors provide only limited stability during vertical flight along the pitch, or nose-tail, axis. (Try keeping a banana parallel to the floor using a pencil that has been jammed perpendicularly through its middle.)

*In computational fluid dynamic studies performed last year at the University of Maryland, aerospace engineering professor J. Gordon Leishman found that the V-22’s design allows severe lateral instability during high-speed descent.

*Of greatest concern, rapid descent degrades the aerodynamic efficiency of proprotor blade airfoils, dangerously decreasing lift just when it is most needed.

Why? Imagine a twin-turboprop corporate aircraft being dragged backward through the air, engines at full throttle trying to pull it forward: that’s a heavily loaded V-22 in assault landing mode. With proprotors trying to grab hold — in a turbulent column of air that has already been pushed violently backward — pressure variations and wake instability disrupt smooth airflow over their blades.

If this turns into blade stall, lift and thrust disappears. Consequences for the aircraft and its passengers are catastrophic.

The deadly vortex ring state (VRS) we’ve heard so much about is an intensified version of that rapid-descent condition, occurring at low altitude — especially when turbulent air reflected from the ground is reingested, causing massive loss of thrust. Traditional helicopters, whose much longer rotor blades rotate far more slowly than Osprey proprotors, are less subject to VRS.

Changes in blade design could improve things a bit. Boeing, which used a modified F-111 to research mission-adaptive wings in the late 1980s and early 1990s, advocates blades that use piezoelectric devices to change shape during descent. Bell Helicopter Textron is considering slotting the leading edge of the current blades to prevent boundary layer detachment. Fine — but too little, too late.

As recently as 2001, Aldridge said he had “some serious doubts” about “the operational suitability of the V-22.”

Although the Osprey’s current operational testing will surely include high-speed vertical insertion under simulated battlefield conditions, there is no comparison with actual combat. The first time a pilot maneuvers through flak and sees real tracers arcing up at his Osprey and its load of troops, we know how fast he will try to get them on the ground. Catch-22.

Aldridge’s “serious doubts” were right on the mark.

Today’s better-built Osprey should have no trouble ferrying troops. But high-speed vertical descent under fire is a different matter. Aerodynamic limitations experienced by all tiltrotor aircraft in vertical landing mode mandate that the Osprey descend with care — thus requiring an expensive escort of close support aircraft.

If pressured into high-speed vertical descent at the knife-edge of controllability, Ospreys will jeopardize the lives of troops on board before they even faced the enemy. Since the resumption of flight testing the V-22 has, commendably, established a new standard of reliability. Unfortunately, tiltrotors are not the solution to successful vertical assault into hotly contested landing zones. n

A former U.S. Marine, Lee Gaillard writes frequently on defense issues and military technology.

[Leatherneck]

Kelly,
Thanks for posting this. I had meant to, but the week grabbed hold of me and wouldn't turn loose! You know how that goes.
Ignoring the flatulent tones in the author's diatribe, I have a couple of disagreements with his assessment. Let me burden Y'all...

The malevolent Catch-22 lurks in battlefield aerodynamics and the risks encountered by a revolutionary aircraft attempting transformation of military assault operations. No matter how well-built, each Osprey delivering troops to heavily defended landing zones will court disaster. Why? If it comes in too slowly, it will get badly shot up — like that flight of more than 30 AH-64 Apaches in Iraq — or worse, shot down. If, on the other hand, its vertical descent is too rapid, it will crash and troops will still die. It’s that simple.
Why would the V-22 "come in too slowly"? The thing decelerates rapidly--more so than most heloes making a quickstop. If he's referring to descent rate when he says "comes in too slowly" then he's not familiar with recent test results compared to helicopters. The program is right at the end of Phase 1 of HROD testing, which has included hundreds of flights and many hundreds of test events,in each one of which the V-22 was flown intentionally outside the authorized flight envelope in an attempt to induce vortex ring state and a roll-off. IIRC, 12 roll-offs were encountered, and all were in precisely the same conditions predicted by the engineers in advance. At speeds between 10 and 40 knots, when sink rate was allowed to build up and remain at between 1900 to 4000 feet per minute for 4 to 6 seconds (those conditions include the parameters of the Marana mishap), VRS ensued and roll-off occurred. Each event was recovered in about two seconds by tilting nacelles forward and applying power. Altitude loss was minimal.

Think about what was needed to get into VRS/roll-off: the two pilots had to screw up an approach and set up unnatural conditions (low airspeed, high sink rate) for 4-6 seconds, listening to "Bitchin' Betty" and staring into a flashing warning light all that time, before anything bad happened. I think that the knowledge throughout the V-22 community will certainly instill a healthy respect for these dangerous conditions in every pilot (and crew chief/FE) so deeply that we can reasonably expect that Marana will *never* be repeated. I know: never say "never." You know what I mean.
The things that are different now include:
1. We have tons of test data on VRS/HROD and know the boundaries.
2. The flight simulator will now simulate VRS.
3. The community understands the consequences of VRS.
4. The warning system works.
5. We understand the optimum use of nacelle tilt to recover from VRS.

I'm not ready to say "problem solved" yet, but I'm pretty confident that when OT&E is complete, we'll have a lot of confidence in the aircraft again.


In computational fluid dynamic studies performed last year at the University of Maryland, aerospace engineering professor J. Gordon Leishman found that the V-22’s design allows severe lateral instability during high-speed descent.
UnHmm. But we have actual flight test results that show that, while Dr. Leishman's predictions were generally in the right direction , the amplitudes of the aircraft responses were generally much less than his math model predictions. Which would you trust: math models at U of M, or flight tests performed in an MV-22?:rolleyes:

Although the Osprey’s current operational testing will surely include high-speed vertical insertion under simulated battlefield conditions, there is no comparison with actual combat. The first time a pilot maneuvers through flak and sees real tracers arcing up at his Osprey and its load of troops, we know how fast he will try to get them on the ground. Catch-22. Well, we're not allowed to shoot at the test airplanes. But the program has tried to simulate a panic reaction by stabilizing in near-VRS conditions and applying drastic control and cross-control inputs like full left stick and right pedal, then full back stick. The results were surprising: even though the data traces showed incipient VRS, meaning that the airplane was about to experience a roll-off, the drastic control inputs seemed to actually upset the VRS airflow, fending off the roll-off. Low-speed combat maneuverability was actually shown to be superior to typical helicopters under those high sinkrate conditions.

So you guys choose who to believe: (a) a reporter (even a former Marine one) reporting on his understanding of how a university professor tried to simulate V-22 vortex ring state on a computer, or (b) actual flight test results.

I'm inclined to go with option B.

Semper Fi

TC

[jdullighan]

Every time a new airplane, especially a revolutionary airplane is introduced into service, the doomsayers dream up scenarios where in their considered opinion, disaster will ensue. All I can say about the latest is:

1. It is well known that slow, straight-in approaches are an invitation to be shot down. It is strange but in every new war, this needs to be re-learned.

2. I'd lay money, large amounts of money, that the young hot shot pilots will find a way to get the Osprey into and out of a hot LZ quickly. I guarantee you nobody had heard of a "Buttonhook" back at Morton PA when the H-46 was being designed. It's amazing how being shot at sharpens the mind.

3. If you are a retired General, no-one pays you money to write about how well a program is running. Where's the news in that.

[D.York]

Comparisons of Osprey to Apache is really a reach, but since the comparison of apples to oranges has been made, I thought I would throw this in. It really doesn't deal specifically with Osprey, but does touch on the Apache flight that got hit so hard in Iraq, as well as explain the differences in USMC & US Army doctrine. I don't want to take this off topic, but I would like to hear how tactics will be developed for gunship support of the Osprey. You gunship guys can pic it apart all you want-way out of my league.

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=DefenseWatch.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=127&rnd=859.9240150069655

Perhaps a better analogy for the article posted by Kelly, would have been the Chinooks involved in Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan. Both a/c (Chinook & Osprey) are transports-both make fairly fast, high approaches. If I remember the news articles correctly, the Chinooks initially took their hits from high ground on both sides, while flying thru a valley without gunship support--- into known hostile terrritory. A recipe for disaster.
It was always reassuring to 463 crews to see Scarface off our wings.

[GEORGE CURTIS]

It was true in 1978 and it is still true today


"No system has been created which equals the efficiency of a rotor blade of a helicopter for vertical flight"

Lieutenant Colonel William R. Fails, USMC

Marines and Helicopters 1962-1973

History and Museums Division
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps
Washington, D.C.
1978

[Leatherneck]

Absolutely correct, George; but no helicopter can cruise at 250 knots. The tilt-rotor is a compromise between VTOL and high-speed (and long-range) cruise. That, combined with the need to go aboard LPD/LHA decks, drove the design of the rotor system, and it pretty much can't be changed now.

BTW, I'm not as much of a fan of the idea that the V-22 would have been good in Afghanistan as some people are. The very lack of high efficiency in the rotors means that control margins would be slim at high altitudes like the Tora Bora neighborhood.

Iraq, now...that's another story. :D

TC

[GEORGE CURTIS]

I agree

[Roth]

I'll still a doubter, as all statistics are presented to boister ones position and can be "minipulated" to the presenters idiology. This I am certain of, as I have done it many times myself.

When I see an Osprey hovering at the end of a finger ridge picking up a Recon team and receiving fire from its 5 and 7 o'clock positions in a 10 knot cross wind, THEN and only then will I believe the Ospey has a snow balls chance in the devils playground to replace the 46.

The only way it can replace a "real" helo is, as I have stated before, that the concept of "vertical envelopment" is limited to very large and relitively flat areas that are not under "active acquirement".

[accs]

I have to agree with Roth on this one. It has a lot of pluses but it just is not a helicopter and I think we will have some sort of helicopter with us for a long time to come.

[Leatherneck]

I think we will have some sort of helicopter with us for a long time to come. Not to state the obvious, but the CH-53E heavy lifter, and the upgraded AH-1Z four-bladed attack helo and the UH-1Y four-bladed light utility helo are all slated to be in the Corps' inventory at least until 2015, and possibly beyond.

My personal opinion is that the hybrid tilt-rotor will only come into its own when the Corps has the opportunity to experiment with tactics and roles/missions of various aircraft in support of shaore-based and sea-based assault and sustainment operations. Thus the birth later this month of VMX-22 at New River. Their role, following OPEVAL II in FY05, will be to continue tactics development to optimize the strengths and work around the weaknesses of the V-22. Operating a tilt-rotor exactly like a helicopter is a huge waste of time, money and lives already tragically lost.
S/F

TC

[Kelly M. Lea]

TC: Speaking of the UH-1Y.....


New Huey completes 20k-hr fatigue test
By John C. Milliman, PMA-276 Public Affairs Officer



NAVAIR PATUXENT RIVER, MD – The Corps’ newest utility helicopter, the UH-1Y Huey, attained a rare and important helicopter milestone July 17 – 20,000 hours of fatigue testing.

Representing twice the required 10,000-hour fatigue life of the SuperCobra and Huey, the test took place at the Bell Helicopter test facility at Fort Worth, Texas.

The AH-1Z SuperCobra completed its 20,000-hour test in November.

“This rigorous testing program is required because the new Huey, under the familiar silhouette, is a vastly improved aircraft structurally,” explained R. L. Hauk, consulting engineer to Bell’s New Product Development Center. “With the addition of the SuperCobra drive train, power plant and rotor system, the aircraft has an additional 1,200 pounds of fuel and maximum useful load of an additional 4,000 pounds. To handle the additional loads, the airframe features full-length, one-piece ‘high speed’ machined main beams and bulkheads. This feature reduced the part count, fabrication time and distributes additional loads in the airframe structure.”

The fatigue testing included low-cycle, or ground-air-ground, tests by placing the structural test article in a fixture and using actuators to place stresses on it in various places to reflect actual load extremes the airframe will experience in flight.

“In the GAG testing, we go to the extremes of the load cycle,” explained Bell’s Bill Evans, an airframe stress engineer. “From sitting on the ground, to full 3G maneuvers and then back to a hard landing. We essentially ran the most extreme normal flight maneuvers back-to-back for 20,000 (accelerated) hours.”

“We started the test April 25, 2001,” explained Mark Woods, a Bell structural test engineering specialist. “We used 24 hydraulic actuators, six to position the aircraft in the test fixture and 18 to input the loads to the airframe. During the course of the test, we applied 1.2 million load conditions while monitoring 192 strain gauges.”

The purpose of all this testing is determining the life and durability of the aircraft, explained Evans, as well as determining inspection intervals. And proving all of it to the Fleet.

“We want to find out where the problems are, and when they occur,” he said. “That way, we’ll fix them in production so they won’t be problems out in the Fleet. To prove to the Fleet that the aircraft is good for 10,000 hours, we go to 20,000.”

Other engineers agree this extensive testing provides real benefit to the Fleet as aircraft platforms are increasing being asked to soldier on long beyond their originally envisioned lifetimes.

“What we have seen out in the fleet,” said Bob Ernst, head of NAVAIR’s Aging Aircraft IPT, “is that we are charting new waters -- we're going where we've never been before in structures and fatigue life. By investing in proactive approaches like fatigue testing, we can remove some of the wizardry and fix potential problems at a fraction of the cost. This platform will age better and a heck of a lot more gracefully than any of its predecessors because we've been to the back side of the age curve, fatigue-wise, before it's even in production.”

Bell Helicopter officials were quick to give credit where it was due.

“This achievement would not have been realized without the hard work of the engineers, mechanics and lab personnel on the floor, maintaining, designing, repairing, and inspecting these test articles,” said John Busch, Bell’s H-1 Structural Test Articles IPT leader. “These guys have truly taken on a personal attachment to these articles, have worked as a real team and have gained much knowledge for the future.”

The team now is in the planning stages of preparing the test article modifications and repairs for the next stage of the UH-1Y’s fatigue testing -- high cycle testing, according to Hauk.

The H-1 Upgrades integrated test team here currently has achieved more than 1,284 flight test hours with five aircraft (three AH-1Z and two UH-1Y test aircraft, of which all but one AH-1Z are production representative). Four of the aircraft are currently undergoing modification to incorporate the moveable elevator and the Thales Top Owl helmet mounted display.

H-1 aircraft have totaled more than 27 million flight hours since Oct. 20, 1956 when the “granddaddy” of all H-1’s, the XH-40, made its first flight. Since then, more than 16,000 H-1 helicopters have been produced by Bell and its licensees -- making it the most successful military aircraft in aviation history.

[Roth]

What do you think the 'ol phrog would be, if Boeing were to put the same time and effort into it.

It seems that George T. Curtis(?) had a blurp on a semi-composite replacement/enhancement for the '46 that was confirmed by a couple others.

I don't doubt the Osprey may be a good thing, it just can't do what a helo can do. I find it somewhat dissapointing that the principles involved keep trying to "push" the Osprey as a replacement for helos.

[Leatherneck]

Roth
I find it somewhat dissapointing that the principles involved keep trying to "push" the Osprey as a replacement for helos.
Well, the fact is that the Phrog is going to die of old age, and the V-22 is what was chosen a very long time ago to replace it. If you focus on what has to be done instead of How it's being done now , you get a different perspective. The mission task is to get Marines from point A to point B ready to fight, then you begin to appreciate the extraordinary flexibility that comes with a tilt-rotor. The future fleet of CH-53E heavy lifters, and V-22 medium lifters, and UH-1Y light utility and AH-1Z light attack aircraft will do things a lot differently than when we were doing it. The tactics and techniques will start getting refined when VMX-22 stands up next month, and I for one think it's exciting to envision all the potential ways there are to accomplish the mission and survive in the current world of assymetric warfare. More and more Marines are beginning to share that vision, but only time will tell.
TC

[Roth]

No doubt that IF the Osprey can ever get to a level that it is reliable, field maintainable, has nice large secure zones to get in and out of, and can survive in a combat zone it will do well.

The issue I have is that it is touted as replacing the helicopter(s). I'm sure that the most ardent supporter will agree that it can't do that. It looks to me as if the Osprey has been designed primarily as a "troop transport".

I agree it will be able to do that mission much better than anything that the Corps has now. It will be able to get into and out of places that a "normal" fixed wing can't.

But I don't think that it should be expounded that the Ospreys' mission will be the same as we did with the "Dogs and Phrogs".

In my humble opinion that is where much of the confusion and controversy eminates.

[accs]

Once again I have to side with Roth on this one. Just because the powers that be way back when thought that this bird would/should/could replace the Dogs/Phrogs didn't have a clue.

Yes, it will be a zippy transport, but never do the job of a helo.

[Brian Gunther]

Now barring that I am still in the Marine Corps and should not talk bad about the V-22: The coment made about it being able to do the job in the later two conflects ODS and OIF I can't coment about ODS but in Iraqi Freedom, I could have done some lifts but not the job that the frog did. I flew with some frogs as there escort(UH-1N) and they go into some tight places fast in and fast out. The fatal flaw of the V-22 ( Vortex ring state) would have been a problem.
Plus the fact thta the frog went into hot LZ's they have 2 .50's the V-22 has nothing.
So it probably could have hauled suplies and stuff but casevac and troop inserts. who knows???????

Brian

[Leatherneck]

Brian,
Welcome, new guy. Thanks for your observation, and thanks for the good work over there.

You said:
I flew with some frogs as there escort(UH-1N) and they go into some tight places fast in and fast out. The fatal flaw of the V-22 ( Vortex ring state) would have been a problem.
Did you know that the V-22 has a minimum 150% margin over the 800 fpm sink rate limit before it encounters the first sign of VRS? That's actual flight test data. The V-22, in over 250 attempts at VRS, never encountered roll-off unless the sink rate exceeded 2100 fpm for at least 4-6 seconds without any control input.

So, given that with the nacelles below about 80 degrees the V-22 cannot enter VRS, why wouldn't a fast approach to an LZ, followed by rapid completion of conversion and final approach within the 800 fpm limit, be effective and survivable?

Regarding the gun situation, I'm with you on that one. That's perhaps the single biggest concern remaining on the V-22 design: how will we protect it from an unexpectedly hot zone?

TC

[Roth]

The faster anything goes into a zone, the bigger the zone has to be. 262 had that problem in one particular zone that I remember in early '67 and it cost them a couple of birds.

High, hot, and heavy isn't conducive to any flying machine.

It would seem that the same aerodynamics that produce VRS under "controlled" conditions can happen "in the heat of the moment".

I realize that some one, some where, has probably looked into the problem.

Let's say it is going into a zone the size of a baseball diamond (not including the outfield) and it has 40 foot trees around it and one way in and one way out.

If nothing else, pulling in a LOT of power to stop the forward movement and sink rate certainly would reduce any margine available.

I still have a gut feeling that the Osprey couldn't perform that type of mission without some dire results.:confused:

[Brian Gunther]

The vortex ring state is the biggest consurn ring now up and down the ranks with the V-22. It is the causal factor in the AZ crash it is the reason they are putting a damm warning light in the cockpit for it. The higher up from what I hear are very conserned about Vortex ring state. True the V-22 has the power but in that state less power is better, you have to fly out of it not pull power.

I'm also on board with the UH-1Y but that's because I fly UH-1N.

It's just hard to see the V-22 doing some of the things that the 46 can do.

About safety: They have been flying the V-22 and prototypes for 14 years and have had what 5 crashes. One being engineer miss wirering V-22-1. The other crashes have been pilot error of mech. the last one, in New River, that was a computer anomoly they said.

Look at the F-14 they made 21 test aircraft, the crashed 20 of them. The Ch-53E crashed 10 of it's test aircraft.
What is the difference? It is who is watching and how much it costs. This aircraft is very public, and cost $$$$. So when one goes down people know it.

Brian

[Roth]

You're right, Brian.

The Osprey is a highly visible project, especially in these days of "tight" budgets.

I can't speak of the problems with the '53s, but I can remember having to go out and retorque(sp?) a lot of "Jesus Nuts" on the rotor heads of the A model '46s we had in '66. I can also remember changing out a lot of blades as well for delamination, not to mention the "beef up" of station 410.

All aircraft, be they military or civilian, have their "theething problems". It just that the Osprey has had 14 YEARS of problems!!!!

If those involved with the project would not be trying to make the Osprey a "do all, fit all" aircraft, I believe the project would be a part of the current inventory.

The concept is valid for the "tilt rotor" (although it should be called a "tilt propeller") if it would just be utilized in the mission profiles it is good at.

[Brian Gunther]

True, they are trying to do too much,
Plus it doesn't help that almost 8 years ago someone tryed to kill the project that didn't help any.


You should see what Bell has in the pipeline once the V-22 gets in the inventory.
Its called the QTR
or Quad tilt rotor?
Oh Boy

[Brian Gunther]

This is all we really need

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/GBU/aircraft/military/images/AH1Z_large_2.jpg

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/GBU/aircraft/military/images/UH_1Y_large_a.jpg


Im not one sided or nothing but

Just glad to be part of the rocket and gun club

[Roth]

A little off topic....BUT: I always wanted to fly a Cobra!! Still do.... just to bald, and to fat nowadays.... hehehe.

I sure hope that the manufactures get it right with the Osprey before they try something that has a lot more "monkey motion" involved.;)

[Leatherneck]

As luck would have it, I'm responsible for oversight of the H-1 Upgrades Program testing as well as the V-22. Was down at the hangar at Pax River Monday and both a V-22 and an AH-1Z and a UH-1Y were all bouncing and/or testing right in front of the hangar. It was easy to squint my eyes and envision "the future of Marine rotary-wing aviation" right there. :D

TC

Did you know that the four-bladed AH-1Z has achieved 266 knots TAS in flight test?

[Roth]

Sounds like that one is a "keeper", just like the Osprey would be if everyone would only take a step back and use it for what it CAN do, and not try to make it into something it isn't.

[Crazy Joe]

Osprey's Fatal Flaw(s) - my opinion

1. Costs way too much.
2. Will suck up USMC manpower and money like no other helo. Those men and money will come from other helo units.
3. Maintenance will keep availability ay very low levels.
4. Limited mission capability.

Semper Fi

"Crazy Joe" Scholle

[Roth]

Ummm, I am afraid you are right on target Joe.

It has already "sucked up" enough money for a really good party!!:(

[Leatherneck]

At the end of OPEVAL three years ago, the four V-22 test aircraft were taking 18.6 maintenance man-hours per flight hour (against an operational requirement of fewer than 11.0 MMH/FH. For comparison, Navy data for all CH-46 aircraft in the Navy and Marine Corps averaged 15.8 MMH/FH from 1995 to 1999.
The operational requirement also requires that USMC direct maintenance spaces per aircraft must not exceed current levels dedicated to CH-46E and CH-53D medium lift squadrons.
By cranking the number machine, it was estimated that, based on the performance during the last half of OPEVAL, a 12-aircraft V-22 squadron would need 32 maintainers to fly 22.6 hours per aircraft per month, as opposed to a 12-aircraft CH-46 squadron that would need 27 maintainers to do the same.

So with a little improved reliability (to be expected as the design matures), the MMH/FH should be close to what the Frog community is experiencing.

The V-22 marginally met the user's requirement for mission readiness, demonstrating between 73 and 85 percent readiness during OPEVAL.

I'm not sure what you mean, Crazy Joe, by "limited mission capability". The V-22 met all key performance parameters during OPEVAL. It can self-deploy 2100 miles with one in-flight refueling. it cruises at 250 knots with 24 combat-equipped Marines aboard, it can lift an external load of over 10,000 pounds, and its much greater range in any assault configuration will allow much flexibility in LZ selection.


Costs way too much.
I agree. :(

TC

[Crazy Joe]

Limited Mission Capability means:

The ability to do one thing very well, move 24 Marines 200 + miles at 250 MPH. But how often will we ever need that capability ? The everyday bread and butter missions are not 200 miles away. Short back and forth hops with less than 24 Marines are usually the order of the day.

I sure hope that no one in command plans to put Marines 200+ miles away from their support and supply them with V-22's. In 1942 Herman Goering promised Adolf Hitler that he and The Luftwaffe could definitely supprt the troops at Stalingrad from about 200 miles with aerial drops. History has showed us the folly of that boast.

The V-22 may turn out to be a good airplane, but I don't believe it's the aircraft that the Marine Corps needs to replace the aging CH-46.

Semper Fi

"Crazy Joe" Scholle

[Roth]

I think that the idea behind the "200 mile" thing is that as the Navy continues to steam toward the objective that a complement of Marines can be dispatched a little sooner that is now possible.

IF a squadron could keep 10 Osperys flying, that means that a whole company (re-inforced) could be placed "on site" in a single lift.

In a matter of just a short time, relatively speaking, quite a formadable force could be in place.

I think the Osprey could be a viable "over the horizon" asset. I just have a gut feeling that it can't fulfill the mission of ANY helicopter.

If the powers that be would, in my humble opinion, 'fess up to the fact that the Osprey really isn't a "battlefield asset" things would go a lot smoother and it, the Osprey' could be in the inventory in the not to distant future as a "transport" for troops and supplies. THAT role seems to be the optimum use of it.

Let the helos do what they do well.

[Brian Gunther]

The 200 ile thing was came up with so that the Marines can deploy from over the horizon. Which means you don't see the foot print on the ships bring Marines over.

The re supply issue is kind f tough we found that out in Iraq a little bit.

[Crazy Joe]

Last time I checked, 50 miles was "over the horizon", about a 25 to 30 minute run for the CH-46.

Semper Fi

"Crazy Joe" Scholle

[Bob Quinter]

You're correct on "over the horizon" Joe, but I think bypassing the "beach" defensive positions is also an objective.

Bob Q

[Brian Gunther]

You have to remember that this A/C was designed durring the cold war era. When they thought they would have to go deep into somewhere when beach landings where not a plan. Also going to the drop spot and back multiple time with out refueling, or doing inflight refueling is a bonus.

[skippy]

I've been reading this website for well over a year and I finally had to reply. "Crazy" Bob, what do you think the Marine Corps just did about 2 years ago? They deployed several hundred Marines hundreds of miles inland into Afghanistan. Everyone must understand that the Marine Corps is no longer "amphibious"; rather it is "expeditionary." Litoral areas include population centers up to 500 miles of the sea. Don't get me wrong, I loved flying the Phrog and think that it is a great piece of equipment but I also believe that its time has come and gone. Gone in the fact that the Marine Corps decided to go with something different and has not funded the 46 community very well for the last couple of years. The guys that came back from Iraq are on their knees. Don't think that the Osprey will have all of the capabilities of the 46, but remember that the Osprey will have a lot of newer capabilities. These capabilities will complement the new tactics and missions of the 21st century. I love reading what people have to say on this website and look forward to future discussions.

Skippy

[Roth]

:) Skippy,

I think you have said the crux of the matter with "new tactics and missions of the 21st Century".

I just hope that any future mission planning and required support elements will include something that can operate in and out of limited area zones ( we used to call them Confined Area Landings) in places like the Phillipines or, God forbid, SE Asia and even parts of the African Continent.

Proof will be in the pudding, as they say...:confused:

[jdullighan]

"I hate to be pedantic", he says and then proceeds to do be just that.

The saying is "The proof of the pudding is in the eating". Proof in the old sense of the word, meaning test. So the only true test is to use it.

[Roth]

Arrrrgh!!!

Ya got me John!!!:D

What is your take, John, being a former Tech Rep on the '46 with 165???

If ya want, you can "PM" me. Or, use my e-mail addy. You should have it.... I think.

[Brian Gunther]

True the only real test is to use the airframe in combat, Having been over in Iraq I not sure it could have done everything the 46 did. It probably would have done fine, but we will never know.
I just gained alot of respect for the 46 community over there. And thats a tough for me to say, since I am a skidkidd.
But we became a tight nit group, at least the ones I hung out with in the CALS of bagdad.

[jdullighan]

Hey Joe, you don't know what demons you may let loose asking me for an opinion.

Let me start by saying that I am not really qualified to have a definitive opinion on the Osprey; I don't have the data nor the experience.
BUT that never stopped me before so why should it now!

I would have to say my feelings about the airplane are mixed. On one hand, you only make progress when you stick your neck out. But on the other this airplane is truly heading into unknown territory and there is bound to be problems we don't know about yet, the dreaded UNK/UNKs, and they usually manifest themselves by killing someone. I'm also concerned that the typical squadron maintenance will not be up to the complexity of the airplane.

Having said all that, my temperament says keep going. I haven't heard anything yet that I haven't heard about other airplanes at the same stage in their development. The B-17 was supposed to be too big and complex for ordinary mortals to fly. Today it seems small and simple. The biggest concern about the B747 was the pilot is so high off the ground when the mains touch down that only a superman could judge when to start flaring. Somehow pilots do it every day. And who would ever have dreampt in 1967 that the H-46 would eventually become the second safest helicopter in service. (the safest is the H-47, the Chinook).

It seems unfeeling to say it but in Aviation, progress is often measured by the number of people killed to find out what we don't know. Today society is unwilling to pay the price but it's still there and if we want the progress we must pay the price.

I think it is a mistake to think of the Osprey as a helicopter. It is a medium speed, medium range transport that can land and take off vertically. And it is the first in what I am sure will be a line of aircraft. It gives the Marine Corps a capability that it doesn't have now. Whether is is worth the considerable cost is a decision above my pay grade (even PFCs make more than I do) but new airplanes always seem unbelivably expensive and they become cheap in time. The H-46 at almost $1 million a pop plus GFE was considered outrageously expensive in 1964. I think we got our money's worth out of the old 'phrog'.

It has been said repeatedly that the only true test is in combat and airplanes that would have passed from the inventory unlamented sometimes turn out to be winners. The F105 is a good example. For all its faults it would fly home with holes in the wing big enough to stand in. You've got to love an airplane like that.

Well then, 'Dullighan' after all that rambling around, tell us what you think. I think we should proceed, recognizing there is a price to pay and it's not just money.


In 1944 the USN commissioned a study to decide if there was a use for the helicopter in Naval and Marine Corps service. The conclusion.

"There is no place for the helicopter in the Navy or the Marine Corps".

The author, Thornton Page, happened to be my former wife's uncle and he used to tell the story against himself to illustrate the point that you have to look, not just at the present capabilities of a piece of hardware but what it can develop into. He would say that his recomendation should have been; "There is no use for the helicopter as it is at present but there may be a use for it if it can be made more reliable, easier to fly and can lift heavier loads (the latter really means better engines). Thornton Page went on to have a distinguished career with NASA but he kept a copy of the 1944 report on his desk. The early helicopters killed a lot of people too.

[Roth]

John,

Thanks for the insight.

It would seem that most of us agree, it is "expensive", not overly reliable (at this point in development), hard to maintain and not reallly a replacement for helicopters.
At least not as we know the role of a helicopter.

I hope that the fortitude is out there to recognize what the Osprey is "good" at and will persue that end: not try and make it something it isn't.

Thanks again, John, for your input.:)

[gunnyjack]

John said it one way and I'll say it another.

We will never know the true possibilities of the V-22 until it gets to the men and women in the field. They are the ones who will fly it and fix it and find out its weakness and strength. That is how it always has been with military aviation. All the testing in the world will not replace the real thing. The '46 was not a shining star by any stretch of the imagination in its early days back in the 60s; but here we are saying the same things about the aircraft which is tasked with replacing it.

The V-22 has been 14 years in development. Why? It will never be a perfect solution to the problem or perceived needs. Neither will any other aircraft out there or presently in development. The '46 was designed as a medium-lift troop transport. All I heard was it couldn't do what the '34s could do. The Marines took the '46 and corrected or modified it to do what needed to be done to accomplish the mission. The same thing will happen with the V-22. This happened in every community in Marine Aviation - F-4, H-1, A-6, C-130, A-4, H-53, AV-8, OV-10, F-18 and the many others. It happens on the ground side of the Corps, also. That is the Marine Corps.

Stop the bickering and get on with the program. The V-22's replacement is already being designed on some computer somewhere. Hopefully, it won't take 40 years to replace it when the time comes.

My faith and support is to the men and women in uniform and the civilians who stand alongside them that the V-22 or any other weapons system will be maintained and used to the best of their abilitities. It is an unfortunate fact of life, especially in military procurement in this country, we don't always get the best and have to adapt and overcome to succeed.

Semper Fidelis,
Mike

[Leatherneck]

I agree with everything Mike said.

TC

[jdullighan]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Agree with everything Mike says.

Hey Leatherneck. Keep up the good work.

As they say in the RAF, "Non Illigitimus, Carburundum" Roughly translated and I do mean roughly, 'Don't let the Ba....ds grind you down'.

I know what it's like at this stage in a long development program. The end is so near you can taste it but there always seems to be something else that pops up. Remember the old saying, the last 5% consumes 25% of the time and 50% of the money.

[Roth]

Yep, it takes a while.

I wish they'd start doing things with it that it will face when it gets "on-line". I know they need to have all of the "controled" tests, but even the tests won't do what will happen once it is really being used.

Ah, well, Ours is not to question why, ours is just to do and ????

[jdullighan]

You might wonder where the above quote comes from.

Only the Brits would write glorious poetry about what is one of the more spectacular screwups in military history. If you don't win then turn a defeat into something glorious. The charge took place in the Crimean War 1853-1856 when the Light Brigade charged up a narrow valley, straight into a Russian gun battery that they knew was there. The casualties were 478 killed out of 673, 70%++


THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE

by: Alfred Tennyson (1809-1892)

I

HALF a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
'Forward the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns!' he said.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

II

'Forward the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Some one had blunder'd.

Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

III

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of hell
Rode the six hundred.

IV

Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turned in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd.
Plunged into the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel'd from the sabre-stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not,
Not the six hundred.

V

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

VI

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made!
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!

[Leatherneck]

Thanks, John, for the encouragement. As many know, "stuff happens" in developing a new aircraft. It's expected, it's planned for, and the effects are dealt with as they occur. There are real professionals working on the Osprey program, and they do what pros do...

The discouragement comes from people who are unable or unwilling to look at things objectively and acknowledge the good with the bad. Objectivity can be a rare commodity.

S/F
TC

edited to add:
Next Thursday at New River, the Marine Corps' newest squadron stands up. VMX-22 will first train for, and then execute an operational assessment of the Block A aircraft, and then execute OPEVAL Phase Two in late 2004. Then they'll become a tiltrotor experimantal squadron to learn how to fight the machine. What a long time coming; but we're on the right track, I think.

[Roth]

It is good news that the Osprey is finally scheduled to get back into a "lets see what it will REALLY do" mode.

It will be interesting to see if one can do what we used to do with the phrogs. (see below).

Lotsa luck and hope that all the really "big" bugs are taken care of.:)

[GMello]

Sadly, and in my humble opinion, we are all looking at the 'technology' of war. History, in most instances clearly demonstrates that victory in war is rarely achieved with technology. Strategic bombing in World War 2 is a perfect example. While bombing certainly had an affect on the outcome of the war it still did not prevent Germany from producing arms right up to the last day of the war. Germany, without a doubt had a leadership role on technology. One need only look at the V2, V1, jet aircraft and rotarywing technology they produced. Germany lost the war because it could not produce enough people to fill it ranks and it diverted precious resources to the development of costly weapons systems. War is simply the law of large numbers prevailing over an opponent with fewer numbers...the Russians proved it on the Eastern front in WW 2. Many men (and women), simple but effective tanks, artillery and planes. The Germans would have two hundred 88 artillery pieces only to be faced with eight hundred Russian 82's...guess who won?

My point is really simple: Technology is a great thing, but having my ruthers I would take say one hundred 53's over twenty V22's. From an operational aspect I believe the 53's, or even the old 46's would outperform the V22's tactically. No one involved in combat operations wants to hear about maintenance hours and growing pains of an aircraft platform...they want to see those medevac planes in the air, they want to see resupply and troop insertions whenever necessary...and they want aircraft survivability to be part of the game plan.

It is unfortunate, but true, that the Marine Corps is still the step child of the military. The Corps has to still perfome above expectations, produce results that exceed all other branches of our armed forces, do it better and faster than everyone and do it all on a budget that is an insult to the Corps. If you really want the Corps to progress and improve contact your elected representatives in Washington, DC. And if you believe all is well try to catch Congressional hearings on cable when the Marine contingent is there presenting their case to Congress...it will make you sick.

Anyway, my nickels worth on the subject. Frankly, we should still be building the 34D's...now there was a piece of machinery that was simple, strong and ugly...but it could take a licking and keep on ticking...:cool:

[accs]

I have to side with 'Gordo' on this, and that is my nickel's worth.

;)

[D.York]

Originally posted by Leatherneck


The discouragement comes from people who are unable or unwilling to look at things objectively and acknowledge the good with the bad. Objectivity can be a rare commodity.

I fully agree, but objectivity must be equally applied by both sides of a problem-both from the suporters and the detractors. I hope the aircraft proves itself soon & gets out into the field & fleet where more realistic evaluations can be made. I also hope, if it goes that way, that those who are working on it and even those who have vested financial interests in it are objective enough to be able to say- "Hey, it's been 'X' years now, billions spent, 'X' lives lost, & it's still not (??????), so it's time to shut this down & find an alternative fast."
Like you said, objectivity is a rare commodity. The reality is, that even with entheusiasim, hard work & dedication, some things are just not to be in a specified timeframe or technological era. . We have to be able to admit it if that turns out to be the case here.

I've sen some really interesting photoshopped jepgs regarding armament & defense on the osprey. most are unrealistic, but kinda fun to look at . I'll try to downsize them enough to post here.

[John Allison]

I've not entered the fray on the Osprey before but I do have a few comments.

The Osprey could very well have a place in the modern Marine Corps and it's deployments.

However I just can't see it totally taking the place of my beloved, yes beloved, 46. I just can't see it backing up to a place like the rockpile (see the great picture above), or a multitude of other zones we all remember in the jungles of Viet Nam.

Even if the Osprey becomes operational I just don't see how it can do the job of a medium lift helicopter like the 46.

I have no doubt the Corps needs a replacement or major upgrade of the 46, but don't see it as a monster larger than the 53. There's a reason the 53 couldn't be used exclusively instead of the 46 and the same reasons plus many others seem to apply to the Osprey.

The 46 was at one time thought to be too large to replace the 34 but I guess after almost 40 years it has shown itself as a capable repacement. The Osprey could probably do alright in open areas like most of the mideast, but what about jungles and mountains. Another option will be needed. I can't see the transition of the Osprey being fast enough in a hot zone in restricted space to hit the ground and get back off with emergency medevacs or recon extracts without losing lives and aircraft at an alarming rate.

Don't get me wrong. I believe it will be able to do a lot of things better than our great birds of the past and present, but there will still be a need for medium lift helicopter in our Marine Corps and I pray they aren't putting all their eggs in one basket.


Semper Fi,

John Allison

PS. I have to admit I worried a lot when my son joined the Marine Corps 11 years ago and I thought about him flying in some of the same airframes we flew back in the 60's. I still worry about our young brothers flying those same airframes today but they still manage to get the job done.

[jdullighan]

It must be 35 years since I first heard "The H-46 may be a great airplane but it'll never replace the H-34." I also heard "It was the happiest day of my life when I stopped flying that underpowered hog" You choose.

But to suggest that we should substitute the H-34 for the V-22 takes my breath away. If you put a present day helicopter pilot in an H-34, he/she would bust their chops within minutes. They were quite tricky to fly with some nasty ways of biting. And remember 80 knots cruise. The H-34 was the first real helicopter the Marines had but compared with what we have today, get serious.

I love the picture of the H-46 landing(!) at the Rockpile. Are there any more out there. I'd love to start a collection.

[GMello]

John,

No one is suggesting we start to again manufacture the H-34.

First, I was being faceious...a little levity from a person who spent his entire four years in the Corps with the H-34.

My philosophy in life is based upon the KIS principle...KEEP IT SIMPLE...on the ground level we have the AK47. Russian pilots popped more German aircraft with fewer planes on the eastern frony because of large numbers. They would have four or five planes attack one German Me109....guess who won? The problem the Russinas had...they could not train more pilots fast enough to keep up with plane production!

Technologically, the 34 is a simple aircraft and as such I will stand by its defense....takes a licking and keeps on ticking...amazing what Wessex has done with the airframe ain't it.....:cool:

[GMello]

John,

That should read:

The Germans had fewer planes than the Russians and what they did have would be swarmed upon by the Russians....

Gordo

[jdullighan]

Gordo:

Sorry, I'm taking myself too seriously.

But your example isn't a good one. The Mig-3 was inferior to the Me 109 but the La 3 was comparable and the La 5 was better. The differences were such that pilot skill was the most important factor and the Russians had some good pilots. It is ironic that the top Russian Ace got most of his kills in a Bell P39 Airacobra, an aircraft avoided like the plague by both American and British pilots.

A better example is the difference in quality between the German tanks and the Allied tanks (mainly the Sherman) in WW2. The Germans up to the end of 1944 built 26,639 tanks. The Allies built 113,273, (the Brits 26,869 the Americans 88,410) which was fortunate because the allies would lose 5 tanks for every German tank they knocked out. The Sherman was a fast, reliable tank but compared to the German Panther or the Tiger it was under gunned and poorly armored. At Villers-Bocage on 13 June 1944, a single Tiger tank commanded by Captain Michael Wittman stopped the advance of the entire British 7th Armoured DIVISION. Wittman knocked out 25 British tanks and 28 Armored Vehicles by himself. His Tiger was hit by fire from the Brits without any apparent effect. He later did similar carnage to American formations. He was killed by the Canadians at Falais in August who surrounded him and just battered him to death. The Canadians had been concerned at the start of the action because the Germans had 35 Tiger tanks and they only had 700 Shermans. Yes, the huge advantage the allies had in numbers meant that they would win but at a greater than neccesary cost in men's lives. The American nickname for the Sherman was the Ronson. The Germans called it the 'Tommy Cooker'.

The good news was the Allied superiority in artillary and aircraft, both in quality and numbers was unchallenged.