LivingInMEM

I think the Osprey tops the list as far as the number of detractors amongst both operators and customers (Spec Ops, etc) is concerned. It gives up a lot of compromises for just one major benefit - speed. Its development was certainly mired in controversy.

ERJF15

I don't like any airplane that it took 20+ years to develop. XV-15 first flew in 1977.

RickyBobby

There are MV-22s in Afghanistan.

VMM-261 Inserts Troops Into Marjah


. . .and RANGE. When compared to its predecessor (CH-46) I think you can add payload and altitude (ability to fly over terrain and above many threats) to the list. The Phrog would be almost useless over there.

RB

LivingInMEM

Not when compared to the new CH-47/HH-47 CSAR-X (which has much more payload) and/or the new MH-53. In addition, we could get two of these helicopters for the price of one CV-22.

USMCFLYR

At the same time - the Osprey wasn't suppose to be a replacement for those aircraft - or at least I can say that the MV-22 is not a replacement for the Corps CH-53E heavy lift capability. The MV-22 replaced the CH-53Ds and is currently replacing the CH-46s.

I worked with CH-46s up in the Sierras during Mountain Warfare Training Center (Summer Package) and there were times when I could only plan for a fireteam or so to be moved and we're not talking elevations anywhere near what they are working with over in Afghanistan.

Back when Boeing/Vertol was showing a group of us around the plant in Arlington, TX they had a presentation showing the variety of missions that they envisioned the Osprey perfroming. One was a mini-AC-130 gunship - basically a suite of miniguns mounted out the side of the aircraft like the Spectre and maybe there was even a Cobra/Apache type of nose/chin mounted turrent too. I can't remember if there was refueling version - but they certainly had high hopes for the aircraft. This was 1990 timeframe.

V-22 Osprey: A Flying Shame?

USMCFLYR

LivingInMEM

On the USAF side, it's a replacement for the MH-53 - or at least, they got rid of the MH-53's as the CV-22's came on board.

The guys who AFSOC used to support with the MH-53 are not so enthusiastic about the CV-22, they gave up a lot of capabilities (drive on ability, fast-rope, the ability to see the aircraft from the edge of a dusty/sandy LZ due to the lack of a dust storm, etc).

USMCFLYR

Yeah - I knew the USAF was going to use the aircraft as part of AFSOC - I just didn't know what their specific plans were. If I remember right - the MH-53 are two-engined varients (like the CH-53Ds).

I don't remember all of the pros/cons of the aricraft - it has been since 2002 since I paid much attention; but that article I linked has a picture of Marines fast-roping out of the Osprey. Have they found out since that you can't fast-rope? One of my former squadronmate was a firm opponent of the aircraft.

There is no doubt that that tilt-rotor technology is still in the early stage of learing how to use it effectively. It is radical and I'm sure there will be MANY more trials and tribulations to come before we can hopefully look back over the past 20+ years and see where we came from and what benefit has been achieved.

USMCFLYR

rickair7777

I'm actually a proponent of the V-22 capabilities. Even though a few RW transports may have greater payloads, once you factor in range and speed the V-22 can deliver more stuff per airframe over a given period of time.

Also it expands mission profile possibilities with speed/range capabilities which did not previously exist unless your LZ was 3000' long and flat.

Will it be cost effective compared to RW? Per pound, probably not unless they can REALLY get operating costs under control. But as I mentioned, it opens up new mission profiles...what's the dollar value of that? Hard to say.

All great stuff, my lingering concern is the complexity and durability...how will it hold up under sustained in-theatre ops and will it become ludicrously expensive to maintain? Only time will tell.

LivingInMEM

I was in theater last year talking to the guys who ride in the back of the CV-22. One of them told me why they can't fast rope, it had something to do with the exhaust when the pods are vertical or the fact that they CV-22 has to hover too high to stay out of the vortex ring state (I can't remember). I do not that after the accidents a few years ago the CV-22 had to maintain forward translation when close to the ground because it might have been more susceptible to the vortex ring thing. These are guys who would be fast-roping into very small/tight footprints, so precise positioning lower to the ground would be nice.

Several of them relayed how they couldn't see the aircraft in the LZ due to the dust storm caused by the exhaust pointed at the ground - even with the blade pitch flat. One busted his leg when he ran into the ramp. Also, they had to leave certain equipment behind due to the smaller compartment. Bottom-line, if the guys in the back can't take their gear or infil/exfil like they need to, it does not matter if they get there faster.

From the operator point of view, not many RW guys that I talked to (who were likely to transition to the CV-22) liked the fact that the CV-22 can't glide nor auto-rotate in the event of a dual-engine failure or transmission failure. One engine can drive both rotors in the event of an engine failure if the power transfer system works, but if there are associated transmission failures all bets are off.

ryan1234

Well John Boyd may be proud of the M/CV-22 because it stays within his maneuver warfare principles.

Also, the Phrog had something like 44 class A mishaps in the first 5 years of operational history... yet it proved to be worth it in the long run and served well.

It is the potential capabilities of the Opsrey that make it appealing... sorta like the computer back when it was huge and expensive.