Posted on 07/19/2006 11:19:44 AM PDT by 68skylark
FARNBOROUGH, England, July 18 — For its debut at the international air show, the V-22 Osprey danced in the sky. It flew straight up, then forward. It twirled and dove down. It flew sideways and even took a bow in midair.
The performance on Monday was 20 years in the making, and Bell Helicopter and the Boeing Company — which jointly made the helicopter-airplane hybrid specifically for the United States Marine Corps — are hoping it will erase memories of the aircraft’s troubled history.
The first squadron of V-22’s is scheduled to be deployed next fall and, at the moment, the Marines have been promised 360 of these planes. At a cost of about $70 million each — the total program cost is $49 billion — the Osprey is one of the Marines’ most expensive weapons. The Marines have staked their future on this craft, and have about 40 flying today at various American bases, but none overseas or in combat.
Bell Helicopter and Boeing are hoping to drum up foreign sales to keep the Osprey’s costs down, and perhaps extend its life. To that end, the company sponsored a lavish dinner during the show at Kensington Palace, the former home of Princess Diana, to woo prospective international clients.
Michael A. Redenbaugh, chief executive of Bell Helicopter, said his company was working with the Marines to try to reduce the cost to around $58 million a plane, and he predicted that it could be done in four years. But for countries whose defense budgets are only a fraction of the Pentagon’s, even $58 million can be a high price for a single plane.
Mr. Redenbaugh said that several prospective international customers would be given test flights at Farnborough. Among them are Britain and Japan....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Thanks for your reply and service!
Based on my engineering/history/ATC experience, see the V-22 as a "transitional" aircraft. It is not perfect, few are. The first B-17 prototype crashed. Few remember that.
The V-22 is unique. Had one declare an emergency based on fuel state. Suggested alternate airports with secure military ramps. Supervisor was deeply concerned until I reminded him that the aircraft could land in any field, like a helicopter. Landed safely at a military field.
In ATC, I treat it as a helicopter that can fly fast.
Rohn
On topic - ask someone how many of the original AV8's crashed over the years of all built. Ask what the schedules are for major maintenance on a UH60 (A helicopter deemed as very safe and sturdy). Go check up how often the fleet of CH47's have been grounded and for how long.
Good comments, mostly.
The V-22 spends 80-90% of its life flying in airplane mode. Fewer bad things can happen in airplane mode. It basically takes off , flies as an aeroplane to an LZ, converts to helo mode, does its thing, re-converts to airplane, and goes home. The point is, the V-22 is neither a pure helicopter, nor a pure airplane. Its operating environment is not as severe as that of a CH-46E or CH-53D-the helicopters it's intended to replace.
I believe it will be the first successful military tilt-rotor (and I once preferred the tilt-wing to the tilt-rotor concept) and will be the precursor to civilian and military tiltrotors that will be truly impressive--like the quad-tiltrotor, which looks like a rear-end collision of an Osprey with a V-22.
Mostly?
Where do you disagree?
[I have not met a single marine that wants to go into hot zone in that thing.]
Forget the hot LZ. I can't find a Marine who'd go to a strip club in a V-22 Osprey, even if the beer and lap dances were free!
I hope the optimists are correct. But I doubt it. This whole program reminds of, "You've already spent $50 billion on the thing. What's another $15 billion so it can actually fly?"
The Osprey should have been killed long before it landed on Rumsfeld's desk.
You make good, reasonable points.
I hope I don't sound argumentative, but it seems like it's easier for us to accept the maintenance and crash statistics you mention in aircraft that carries a very small, volunteer crew (like a Harrier), and less easy to accept the same outcomes in an aircraft that's designed to carry dozens of people at a time.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but with helicopters there's a chance to "auto rotate" to the ground in the event that the very worst happens -- but the Osprey has no such ability. That's another feature that makes some of us nervous -- especially about sending the Osprey into combat.
Am I being too critical of USMC decision-makers? Are my concerns unwarranted? Hopefully the answer is "yes."
"If you want to take off vertically you tend to find certain undesirable traits in an airframe. The Osprey will be no different. In the meantime however, the USMC gets a plane that can go further, faster, carrying more troops than a UH60 of CH46. It can do this with greater efficiency per pound of payload and is more survivable."
I agree. Especially on the survivability issue. In addition to operating in an inherently safer flight regime (medium altitude, twice the speed of a helo), it has the range and speed to circumnavigate known high-threat areas enroute to an objective. And the V-22 was designed to be survivable. Engines and transmissions away from the passengers and crew, triply redundant control and power systems, etc. We tested over 500 live-fire shots into V-22s during development, and the results were fed back into the design, so it can take hits and survive.
No argument about farther, faster or UH60, but troop carrying capacity seems the same.
Oops, should have been CH-46D/E.
It's a cool aircraft, but will probably go down in history like the TFX/F-111.. never quite delivered what was promised, and at twice the price.
glide ratio, not glide slope - oh well. Screwed up in the first sentence already :)
Yes, you are right, the CH46 in troop carrying capacity is the same as a Osprey. The CH46 and Osprey carry about the same in passengers.
"The CH46 can carry about the same number of passengers as an Osprey." You may FIT 24 Marines into a Phrog, but these days, it will never get off the ground. The 46s in service are old and tired; operating in the high density altitudes of the ME, they aften take off with no control margin whatever. The MV-22 has shown that it can carry 24 combat-equipped Marines and get airborne comfortably and carry them 500 miles.
1. can the Osprey glide if it loses power to both engines?
2. can it lose it's blades if for some reason it must land conventianally? (iirc, the blades are seven feet longer than the distance from the rotor centerline to the point of tangency between the bottom of the wheels and the ground...)
If the Osprey can do both of those things, I'll be much more comfortable with it.
Besides the obvious range, speed, ability to take small arms fire, reduced signature, and countermeasures, there is another aspect about the Osprey and survivability which you are also skirting by mentioning the ability to operate at higher altitudes more effectively. The Osprey has a ceiling of 25,000 ft and can work well above the effective ceiling of near all FLAK and MANPADS unlike the CH46.
• Range- Allows routes to avoid threats
• Speed- Less time in threat areas, less time to get into and out of LZ (The most dangerous point)
• Ability to take damage- Self explanatory and the Osprey apparently was designed to take a lot.
• Altitude- Equates to being able to over fly much of the threat.
• Countermeasures- Reduces the probability and effectiveness of many of the new emerging threats like SA18 or SA10/12. What the Osprey is set up with by far exceeds what some of the older systems carry.
Again, I don’t claim to be an expert. However, the more I read the more the notion of this plane being a bad concept is debunked. By March 2005 the US lost no less than 20 helicopters from hostile fire in Iraq. Survivability is an issue.
Look at the cockpit of that Osprey. Glass cockpit, fly by wire technology, imbedded self diagnostics…… that’s a whole new generation of plane over the CH46 or other older systems. There are aspects that need factored in that one does not even think of. One of these was made clear by the slide show I found. In SAR missions that Osprey with its speed and range will be a significant improvement over what is currently fielded. As you mention, in places like Afghanistan where you’re operating near the limit for platforms like the CH53 or CH46 the Osprey will still do well.
Instead of trying to just go with a new version of an old concept, the Marines are going down a completely new road. The Osprey is a new concept of plane and it offers new capabilities. It’s not just some gimmick to have a tilt rotor.
I lay very little value in what I hear in the news. Having learned first hand while in Iraq that their reporting is highly skewed (Agenda driven), factually often incorrect and over sensationalized; I take anything the MSM states with great skepticism.
To me the Osprey seems like an impressive machine. Fact is, the US DoD operates on a different cost curve than ANYONE on this planet. Even our allies can’t afford what we can. Systems like the Osprey are out of the realm of what is financially imaginable for most. The reason why the C17 does not sell well internationally is not performance or capabilities based, IT’S COST! Fact is, our USN spends more on its air wings than the German Air Force all together. We operate in a different financial dimension and other nations not purchasing our planes is not a function of capabilities but rather what they can afford. Often technology as it cheapens over time becomes accessible to those who simply can not afford it when it is new. Frequency hopping cipher text radios came to the German Bundeswehr a good 5-7 years after we started getting them. They simply operate on a different financial plane. Soon they will field their “First” true attack helicopter, the Tiger. The Cold War is over, drones are on their way in and today they field a helicopter that in some respects is inferior to the AH64D. Technology often pays the GEATEST dividend when it is new, even if it is not 100%! Whether it was the first Cobra’s or Apache, the first terrain following radar or when Stealth was in it’s infancy in the early 80s. THAT’S when these revolutionary or conceptual leaps in technology or concepts pay off the greatest dividend!
Someone here mentioned the F111. Well, in reality the F111 is a great example of how revolutionary technology often causes the enemy to be caught off center and highly vulnerable. What enemy radar systems and missiles were effective against an F111 in the late 60s? Why was it the F111 that was the first and only plane that ever bombed Hanoi with their lights still on? It’s revolutionary “leaps” that pay off the most, not evolutionary development. It’s that first radar with BVR capability married to a missile or that Shrike and Standard Arm that paid off HUGE. When some of these revolutionary systems came out the enemy didn’t know “how” to deal with them. Doctrine, systems, or even the simple metrics on performance were all unknowns. We found a weak spot and exploited it. The list of examples is endless! Look at night vision equipment. Years ago few had it and those with it had a significant advantage. Today the newer 3+ gen NVG’s have a marginal advantage against a threat system that is comparable and the technology has proliferated to where even the Iraqis and some insurgent groups have it. Kevlar body armor? Same story. Fully automatic ATGM’s like the Javelin? Same story. You get the huge advantage when it’s new.
When the Germans built their first low level terrain following jet 13 years after the F111, there were already threat systems in place that in part neutralized the advantage of this capability. SA9, SA11, a plethora of newer radars etc were all designed to deal with the low level fast mover. Iraq 1991 proved the vulnerability of the Tornado, but 13 years prior this technology made the F111 with its speed, range, laser designator and TI terrain following radar a hard hitting and near impossible to knock out platform. Some will focus of the fact that a few F111’s were lost because of some glitches with the radar in the beginning (Causing them to burn in), but these same people hardly ever ask the question of how effective enemy SA2, SA3, radar or FLAK was against this plane. The Osprey in a sense is similar. Do we want an old potato reheated and call it new, or do we want a “leap” in capabilities?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.