AirSpare
Topic Author
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:13 am

Should We Kill The Osprey?

Sat Jul 01, 2006 9:09 am

By all accounts (lack) of performance, safety and reliability, cost over runs and delays, fatal test crashes and being butt ugly, should the Osprey program be canceled?

How about a new concept cargo/troop carrier ala the JSF F-35B, with fans instead of the extreme asymmetrical pseudo helicopter props? STOVL should work fine for it's mission. This would satisfy the congressman that are supporting the pork barrel project. For my tax money, I'd rather see the USAF buy a CH-53 dervative.

Some good reading. http://www.sci.fi/~fta/boyd_books.htm

I realize this is a continuation of this post. Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22... (by AirRyan Apr 7 2006 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

But the subject still merits discussion.

Riccioni also critisizes the F-22 here:

http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-050301-fa22.html
Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
 
MigFan
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:50 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Sat Jul 01, 2006 10:44 am

I have no real evidence to back my opinion, but YES. The word "constipated" comes to mind when I think of the Osprey's development.

/M
UH-60's suck!!!
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13174
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Sat Jul 01, 2006 11:27 am

On the contrary, I think the Army should buy Ospreys to equip their Aviation Brigades.

I think the Army should buy Ospreys for the Aviation Brigades that work with the Airborne Units (82nd, 101st Divisons, 173rd Airborne Brigade), 10th Mountain Division and the Stryker Brigades in Germany, Korea, Alaska and Hawaii.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Sat Jul 01, 2006 11:42 am

Yes.

And all future attempts at composite aircraft unless a totally new technology comes along. By "new" I mean something other than aerodynamic lift.

These screwball aircraft have been attempted over and over for more than fifty years. Not one of them would ever have gone into production on its own merits were it not for a procurement process insulated from all taxpayer accountability.

On the other hand, if we continue producing aeronautical hermaphrodites, I have plans for a combination submarine and timber harvester I'd like to show the DoD.

Airplanes fly fast horizontally.
Helicopters fly vertically.

But that is just my opinion.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:35 pm

I'll vote no on this. Some day we'll need to run a mission like the hostage rescue again and nothing fits the mission better.

Disclaimer - I'm not particularly neutral on this as I did work on program.
Where are all of my respected members going?
 
jarheadk5
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:45 pm

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:44 pm

IMO the Osprey should have stayed dead when it was canceled the first time around, and the Corps should have bought an H-60 variant for the HMM mission while a new medium-lift helicopter replacement was spec'd.

Unfortunately, at this point, there's too much invested in the aircraft to just cancel it. Again, IMO.
Cleared to Contact
 
Kukkudrill
Posts: 1039
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 10:11 pm

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Sun Jul 02, 2006 6:41 am

Quoting AirSpare (Thread starter):
should the Osprey program be canceled?

Not till after Farnborough.  Wink
Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Sun Jul 02, 2006 10:39 am

Quoting AirSpare (Thread starter):
This would satisfy the congressman that are supporting the pork barrel project.

I should probably keep quiet, and just let this thread die. But I can't.

There are three 20th century conspiracy theories that refuse to die:

1) There is an alien spaceship hidden in Area 51.

2) There was a second gunman helping Oswald in Dealy Plaza.

3) There are congressmen and senators keeping the V-22 alive solely for political reasons.

The A-12 Avenger (the largest DOD contract ever canceled) could not be saved despite it's strong Texas and Missouri congressional representation.

The Comanche could not be saved despite the combined lobbying by Boeing and United Technology Sikorsky.

The V-22 has been investigated and reviewed over the past 20 years more than all the current Supream Court candidates combined. Yet it still survives. Think about it.

Have fun,

CTR
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:41 pm

At this point the Marines better get some V-22's for the money they have wasted into this pork-barrell pet-project, but I adamently encourage the majority of the buy to be scraped and the MH-60S or H-92 be purchased for the remainder and bulk of the USMC medium lift helo fleet. With the USAF and USA facing huge cuts to their budgets, I just do not see how the Marines can afford to buy all of the Osprey's that they want when they need the CH-53K, the H-1 upgrades, all of the most expensive JSF deriatives in the F-35B's, not to mention the remainder of their C-130 fleet needing KC-130J's, and don't even get me started on the EA-6B's needing to be replaced by EA-18G's... and that's just the Air Wing!

The Osprey is simply not worth the price when you can get 2 if not 3 MH-60S's for every one V-22 when you have all of those other necessary programs needing money, too.
 
jarheadk5
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:45 pm

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:36 pm

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8):
I just do not see how the Marines can afford to buy all of the Osprey's that they want

They're not getting all they want. IIRC, the present buy barely gives a one-for-one swap with the current 46 fleet. Originally, the Corps wanted to replace the 53D's with Ospreys and have a few more VMM squadrons to throw into the deployment cycle. Now, it's starting to look like the Delta squadrons will fly their aircraft to AMARC and museums, and case their colors. Especially if the buy is cut further...
Cleared to Contact
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 04, 2006 2:54 am

Quoting AirSpare (Thread starter):
Should We Kill The Osprey?

Yes; before a heck of a lot of our service men and women die because of it.

Don't get me wrong, I think that this is a great concept with poor implementation. The notion of an aircraft that offers the best of both worlds is a very cool idea, but technology just isn't there. The issues related to the rotorwash in steep approaches is going to pop up again when this aircraft enters operational service.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
jarheadk5
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:45 pm

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 04, 2006 3:08 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 10):
The issues related to the rotorwash in steep approaches

Just to clarify:
The issue is called "Vortex Ring State", not rotorwash. Yes, both are referring to moving air, but they're different.
Cleared to Contact
 
Pope
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 04, 2006 4:08 am

Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 11):
The issue is called "Vortex Ring State", not rotorwash. Yes, both are referring to moving air, but they're different.

I stand corrected - thank you.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 04, 2006 5:51 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 10):
The notion of an aircraft that offers the best of both worlds is a very cool idea,

This is the problem. It is emphatically not 'the best' of both worlds. It will not operate vertically as well as a helicopter. It will not fly horizontally as well as an airplane.

It is the WORST of both worlds.

That is the crux of the argument against such hybrid or composite designs. They do a little of each, only with great difficulty and staggering expense.

What would the pricetag of the Osprey program have bought in CH-47s and C-130s?
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 04, 2006 8:04 am

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 13):
What would the pricetag of the Osprey program have bought in CH-47s and C-130s?

Neither of which can operate off of LH platforms in any useful capacity or number.

You have another way of looking at it. It flies faster and farther than any helicopter with a comparable useful load, and it has vertol capability unavailable in any comparable sized fixed wing aircraft. It has unique capabilities and it is escortable by AV-8/F-35Bs operating off the same platforms and gives the fleet stand off capability, along with the LCACs, that it hasn't had before keeping the biggest vulnerable vessels farther away from the coast and potential enemy fire.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8):
With the USAF and USA facing huge cuts to their budgets, I just do not see how the Marines can afford to buy all of the Osprey's that they want when they need the CH-53K, the H-1 upgrades, all of the most expensive JSF deriatives in the F-35B's, not to mention the remainder of their C-130 fleet needing KC-130J's, and don't even get me started on the EA-6B's needing to be replaced by EA-18G's... and that's just the Air Wing!

You just described the "Great Train Wreck" that planners have been warning about since the 90's which has run into conflict with war funding. We're going to have to raise the stakes here with a national program.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 04, 2006 12:14 pm

Quoting a European columnist from about 10 years ago:

The Jeep is a horrible road car, rough in ride and prone to flip over.

The Jeep is also a poor replacement for a off road motorcycle, it is to wide to navigate narrow trails and to heavy to cross soft surfaces.

Yet despite these short commings, the Jeep is a popular vechicle with sales increasing every year. New uses for this unique vechicle are also continuosly being discovered.

This is the same case for the hybrid airplane - helicopter tiltrotor aircraft...

Every month or so someone starts an V-22 Osprey thread similar to this one. Each time responses to the thread regurgitate the same statements made by the multitude of "experts" that populate the internet. Most of these "experts" have never touched a tiltrotor aircraft, let alone pilot, fly or work on one.

Part of the enjoyment of this site is the freedom to express perceptions opinions openly, regardless of actual personal experience. But out of curiosity, has anyone responding to this thread had direct personal experience with tiltrotor aircraft? Not a friend or aquaintence etc, but actual personal experience (working on, flying, riding).

Have fun,

CTR
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
 
jarheadk5
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:45 pm

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 04, 2006 1:53 pm

Quoting CTR (Reply 15):
But out of curiosity, has anyone responding to this thread had direct personal experience with tiltrotor aircraft? Not a friend or aquaintence etc, but actual personal experience (working on, flying, riding).

Yep.
Cleared to Contact
 
phatalbert
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:25 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 04, 2006 3:16 pm

it does have its pros and cons.. i mean they are starting a new type of aircraft there are going to be flaws etc. i am neutral on this part... there has been quit a few accidents that have hurt the osprey reputation but then again it was new to the crew you got to learn somehow... but tottally trashing the concept i believe wouldnt hurt.. there are plenty of other aircraft exp. helos that can do the same... ide rather have a blackhawk come and get me than a bad rep osprey... but im neutral.. and some of you peeps know heck of alot more than i do.. and some maybe right... but in this being my own opinion thats how i stand...Neautral
**Isaac**
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:23 pm

Quoting CTR (Reply 15):
The Jeep is also a poor replacement for a off road motorcycle, it is to wide to navigate narrow trails and to heavy to cross soft surfaces.

Yet despite these short commings, the Jeep is a popular vechicle with sales increasing every year. New uses for this unique vechicle are also continuosly being discovered.

This is the same case for the hybrid airplane - helicopter tiltrotor aircraft...

Sorry, absolutely irrelevant example.

A Jeep IS a car.

It is a car with four wheel drive, a higher ground clearance, and a funny-shaped body, but a car nevertheless. It incorporates ABSOLUTELY NO motorcycle technology, and the entire point of my post is aircraft with CROSSOVER technology.

Now if you want an automotive example you'd have to go back to the 1960s and a vehicle called the Bearcat. I don't remember who manufactured it, it was powered by an air cooled Lincoln V-4 engine like some arc welders. It had four wheels but the front two were, in motorcycle fashion, on a fork which was steered with a pair of hydraulic cylinders. Thus it actually had crossover technology and can be used as illustration in this case.

Yes, I do have a bit of experience with the Bearcat. I found the following:

1. It was not capable of being made street legal.
2. On roads it did not do as well as any car you can name. A VW beetle was a better troop transport.
3. Offroad, while it could climb a hill I would not have attempted in my '39 Dodge pickup, it could not traverse a hillside without tipping over and it was very difficult to drive down a hill.

The big problem was that when you steered the front wheels to any kind of angle, the CG, which was fairly high, shifted laterally to the edges of the polygon described by the wheels in contact with the ground. Steering brought the outside front wheel closer to the centerline of the aft half of the vehicle. Add a slight lateral G-load because you are changing direction and it would tip over.

A true hybrid vehicle and a resounding flop. Seen one lately.

I'm not dogging the Osprey itself, it may be a wonderful execution of the design goals. I'm not picking on the Osprey team or the warriors who crew them.

It is the very concept of marrying fixed and rotary wing technology that I deem to be invalid, ill-considered and utterly unnecessary.

Would you really want to ride a thousand miles into combat in the back of this thing? I've ridden a thou in the back of a C-130 on a canvas troopseat. Not a lot of fun but I arrived in okay shape. I've ridden in the back of helos to the limits of their radius-of-action and I think the relatively short range is merciful, it still exceeds the endurance of some people.

I believe the pilot workload just in flying this aircraft is going to lead to a high accident rate fifty years from now if we keep it. It will never be as easy to fly as a fixed wing or even as a helicopter because of the transition and the compromises inherent in ANY such design. Go 'fly by wire' to fix this problem and you've only added a layer of complexity that will erode their dispatch reliability and increase their vulnerability.

It is not an execution problem it is a concept problem. Worst of all, the gains even if it suceeds to 100% of the concept's capability do not justify the R&D money. They especially do not justify the concentration of DoD budget away from things that will actually be useful and reliable.

My opinion.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
AFEaviator
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:24 pm

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:33 am

Quoting Pope (Reply 10):
The notion of an aircraft that offers the best of both worlds is a very cool idea, but technology just isn't there

Actually the technology is there, but the compromise in the tilt-rotor design, made so the aircraft could fit on a ship, is what makes the V-22 the plane it is and not the plane it could be.

A longer wing and larger proprotor would significantly increase performance with minimal redesign.

I am currently in training as a FE on the CV and have spent the last few months working with them. Personally I feel that the plane is a lot of compromise, but the technology has a lot of merit. If they got rid of the wing stow, increased the wind span by 3 feet on both sides, and add 3 feet to each prop-rotor you would get amazing gains in performance and much less rotor wash.

As for the vortex ring state issue.

The V-22 is far less susceptible to VRS than helicopters are. I am not sure why this is aerodynamically as I missed the tilt-rotor aerodynamics brief by the Boeing rep a couple of months ago. Looking at the charts though you will get an audible warning at 0-40 KCAS and a 800 FPM sink. This is no where near VRS for the V-22 but was put in as a design safety net to allow the aircrew time to react and correct the situation. At 80 KCAS you are looking at a sink in excess of 1600 FPM to encounter VRS. Anything above that and you can sink all day with out any issues other than mother earth.

As for the difficulty flying it; I think it is easier to fly than a H-60. You can hands off hover the plane with the flight director and in a serious brown-out you can bring the plane all the way to the ground with minimal drift by coupling the AFCS with the Flight Director and just reducing power gradually. I am have no actual pilot time but I have flown the simulator on a number of occasions (( Class D commercially rated sim )) and had no issues flying the plane. Transitioning and Converting are very easy to do and it is very difficult to stall the plane. The aircraft is very redundant system wise and it is hard to get yourself into trouble with it.

Now I am by no means saying the plane is perfect and the be all to end all. I think there is a very real need for helicopters and there utility. I also see where the V-22 fits into a niche that isn't offered individually by a fixed wing or rotary wing asset. Personally I see the V-22 as a middle point/stepping stone for any future use of the R and D that has come of its making. Hopefully the next tilt-rotor (( if there ever is another made )) will not have the compromises in the design ( like having to fit on a ship )built into it.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:46 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 2):
On the contrary, I think the Army should buy Ospreys to equip their Aviation Brigades.

I think the Army should buy Ospreys for the Aviation Brigades that work with the Airborne Units (82nd, 101st Divisions, 173rd Airborne Brigade), 10th Mountain Division and the Stryker Brigades in Germany, Korea, Alaska and Hawaii.

You said this in the last thread too, and I asked you this same question, "WHY?" But you never answered me.

I mean... how did you pick THOSE divisions out of all the others? You do realize the 10th, 82nd and 101st (AIR ASSAULT HOOAH!) are all light divisions?

Beside you thinking it would be cool to have the V-22, why are those divisions in need of the aircraft? I'm not being sarcastic, I am honestly interested in your answer.

What would you do with the Chinook? Which, by the way, can sling load more weight, carry more troops, serve as a gunship if needed and is currently being upgraded to an all glass cockpit Foxtrot model. And if the mission does not require the large -47... the -60 is usually a perfect fit. It's not like we have some huge gap in between.

Where would you find funding for the purchase of the -22? Not sure if you know this... but the Army's budget is virtually tied up at the moment, there isn't any extra cash sitting around.

What mission can the -22 offer the Army that isn't already covered by the current fleet?

I guess what I'm saying is: sure it's cool for us to say, "Yeah the Army needs the RAH66 Comanche!" or "Yeah wouldn't it be cool if the Army had the Crusader Artillery unit!" or "Yeah, the Army needs to buy some V22 Ospreys." - but at the end of the day, you're going to have to give a good reason why we should totally rework Army Aviation and spend billions in the process.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:22 pm

The Army doesn' t need CVs (outside of some specialty role) because it doesn't have the same missions as the Air Force or the Marines. The AF wants to conduct long distance CSAR with faster ingress/egress due to the generally longer distances it has to travel to recover it's pilots. The Marines have a specific need for faster long distance ingress capability for it's assault forces and would like to keep it's big Frog vessels as far from the littorals as possible during the initial phases of any action. That means using LCACs and MVs along with fixed wing support prior to getting closer for helo support.

The Army usually defines the FEBA and does not really need the range or speed as much as it needs the lifting and maneuvering offered by existing assets.

The RAH-66 mission was conceived during the cold war, and the decision to cancel it and redirect the money to where it's at now was a good one. The tech developed is still there and available for future use, but the helo was a mini-stealth attack bird without a real mission, especially in light of developments in UCAV recce birds.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:54 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
The Marines have a specific need for faster long distance ingress capability for it's assault forces and would like to keep it's big Frog vessels as far from the littorals as possible during the initial phases of any action. That means using LCACs and MVs along with fixed wing support prior to getting closer for helo support.

That is the common perception but if you've ever been near the MEU and saw the LCAC's and LCU's offload the ground equipment, you'd realize that the process is so slow that they have to be close to shore in order for it to work. (Ironic too how the Navy had to bring thier CVN's closer in to shore for the Super Hornets than what they had to with the Grumman Intruder and Tomcats, but that's another topic!)

The V-22 advantage only really pays dividends when their doing a SPECOPs type mission which by nature are not usually too terribly large in size, otherwise a conventional helo would be just fine (and at 1/2 to 1/3 the cost, much wiser to procure in large numbers.) If it were up to me I'd carry about as many V-22's as I do CH-53 (four) on my LHD's and make the bulk of my medium lift (about ten to twelve) with a conventional, modern helo such as an MH-60S, H-92, US-101, or even an NH-90.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
but the helo was a mini-stealth attack bird without a real mission

That always made me scratch my head, why did it have to be stealth? At what point would an attack and/or recon helo on a combat mission fly high enough so as to pop up on radar? (Perhaps in the flat desert but it wasn't even designed for those theater's!)
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:15 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 22):
That always made me scratch my head, why did it have to be stealth? At what point would an attack and/or recon helo on a combat mission fly high enough so as to pop up on radar? (Perhaps in the flat desert but it wasn't even designed for those theater's!)

Well what was, and still is to some extent, the biggest threat to helicopters?

AAA.

Remember, back in the late 80s and 90s, the ZSU-23 was seen to be a boogie man of anti-aircraft weaponry. We know now that it's radar tracking abilities were not as awesome as we earlier suspected... but it's still something to avoid! And of course, the Army envisioned the RAH-66 going deeper behind enemy lines than the Kiowa could and to be self sustaining in the process.

Now as AWESOME as flying one of those would have been... the Army made the right decision in cancelling it. And the RAH-70, which is a phoenix risen from the ashes of the Comanche, looks to be a good replacement for the Delta Kiowas. Of course, one of the biggest problems the Deltas face (especially over here in Iraq) is being totally underpowered.

I flew the Charlie model Kiowas back at Ft Rucker... and they were absolutely a blast to fly. But they were overworked, underpowered and always threatening to fly apart at the seams! The Delta model was given an upgraded engine... only to be bogged down with heavy avionics!

So anyhoo... the RAH-70 will have the more powerful HTS900 turbine engine ... but whether they negate this fact by loading it down with more crap, is yet to be seen!

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:36 am

If you kill the Osprey you're going to either loose the heavy transport helicopter capability in the USMC (and in time the Navy and Army as well) or suffer a lot of crashes.
It's already overdue due to political nonsense slowing development and deployment to replace 40 year old machines that have been worked hard and are almost ready to fall out of the sky.

But of course you can just scrap the armed forces, which according to the same people who want the Osprey dead (and the F-22, the F-35, and every other military program) are the enemy.
I wish I were flying
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:09 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 23):
Well what was, and still is to some extent, the biggest threat to helicopters?

AAA.

Remember, back in the late 80s and 90s, the ZSU-23 was seen to be a boogie man of anti-aircraft weaponry. We know now that it's radar tracking abilities were not as awesome as we earlier suspected... but it's still something to avoid! And of course, the Army envisioned the RAH-66 going deeper behind enemy lines than the Kiowa could and to be self sustaining in the process.

But don't those guns have a modern IR capability as well?

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 23):
Now as AWESOME as flying one of those would have been... the Army made the right decision in cancelling it. And the RAH-70, which is a phoenix risen from the ashes of the Comanche, looks to be a good replacement for the Delta Kiowas. Of course, one of the biggest problems the Deltas face (especially over here in Iraq) is being totally underpowered.

I flew the Charlie model Kiowas back at Ft Rucker... and they were absolutely a blast to fly. But they were overworked, underpowered and always threatening to fly apart at the seams! The Delta model was given an upgraded engine... only to be bogged down with heavy avionics!

So anyhoo... the RAH-70 will have the more powerful HTS900 turbine engine ... but whether they negate this fact by loading it down with more crap, is yet to be seen!

I certainly have heard the underpowered gripe on the current OH-58's in use now - especially in Iraq with high temps and in say Afghan when high altitudes factor in, but with the added weight to the ARH/ RAH-70 with it's armament, I fear that it too might still not have quite the power one would prefer when going "behind enemy lines." My theory is don't throw a punch unless your prepared to take one right back - in an Apache I wouldn't hesitate to sling some mud because I know my bird can take a few small arms hits and such. However in the ARH-70, I don't have the luxury of armor or speed and that in my mind would make me at least comparitively hesitant than if say I was in that Apache. I still think it's a gross waste to have spent the $10B+ on the RAH-66 only to just compromise and settle on a Bell Jet Ranger platform!
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:53 am

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 24):
to replace 40 year old machines that have been worked hard and are almost ready to fall out of the sky.

What aircraft are you referring too?

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 25):
But don't those guns have a modern IR capability as well?

It's too bad a lot of what we discovered about Soviet technology is not public realm. Sufficed to say, Soviet military hardware - for the most part - was grossly overestimated.

I've been meaning to start a thread about an opportunity I had a month ago - to fly front seat in a Polish Mi-24 Hind. Ironical it's more difficult to get me the chance to ride front seat in Apache than it is in a Hind! Anyway, I discovered what a lot of military analyses knew since the fall of Soviet Empire... the Hind is a turkey. A race car when you're straight and level, but it has deep deficiencies for the mission that helicopter was designed to fulfill.

Of course I am going far off topic here, and to go back to your question - the ZSU-23 has radar and IR tracking modes, but both are typical of Soviet-era technology: a lot of hype, but not a lot of proven ability.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 25):
I certainly have heard the underpowered gripe on the current OH-58's in use now - especially in Iraq with high temps and in say Afghan when high altitudes factor in, but with the added weight to the ARH/ RAH-70 with it's armament, I fear that it too might still not have quite the power one would prefer when going "behind enemy lines."

The Kiowa is one bad ass helicopter. From an operational standpoint, they're involvement on the Iraqi battlefield is far deeper than the Apache. They've really matured here in Iraq and the scout community has refined its mission to a fine science.

Short story: We were south of Ramadi conducting an air assault mission. We stumbled across what can best be described as a "small staging area" for a group of insurgents. There were trucks, mortar tubes, personnel, all out in the open and they were still unaware of our presence. We were having some trouble with a call for indirect fire, and a Kiowa was in the area and came in to assist. They set up the call, succeeded in landing perfect splashes and then moved in and eliminated the remaining survivors.

The OH-58D, and eventually the RAH-70, are vital to the war effort. The Apaches are doing their thing... but the Kiowa has been the success story thus far.

-UH60
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:51 am

Quoting AirSpare (Thread starter):
Should We Kill The Osprey?

Absolutely not.

What we should deal away with is the Osprey engineers. They should go to the school of engineers that built the XV-15. Christ, this thing can practically do aerobatics without the problems the Osprey has had.

Don't get me wrong. The Osprey is an incredible aircraft. But it is no where near the potential it could be.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:12 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 22):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
but the helo was a mini-stealth attack bird without a real mission

That always made me scratch my head, why did it have to be stealth? At what point would an attack and/or recon helo on a combat mission fly high enough so as to pop up on radar? (Perhaps in the flat desert but it wasn't even designed for those theater's!)

Because they had a nickname for the OH-58C cav scout/aeroscout observer....."Smokebombs". The guys flying these things did not expect to live long in an enemy AAA environment because they were fun to fly, but not resistant to enemy fire or able to shoot back. The OH-58D Warrior was an improvement but as UH says they were too overloaded to achieve their projected performance levels. Since the RAH-70 is going to carry the same warload as the Warrior I'm hoping it's going to have better performance and get more speed and lift capacity.


Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 23):
And of course, the Army envisioned the RAH-66 going deeper behind enemy lines than the Kiowa could and to be self sustaining in the process.

It was designed to avoid the need for Apaches in cavalry or aeroscout missions. It would have been nice, except that I don't know that they would have planned properly for it and tried to assign it attack helo missions for which is was undergunned (may as well have bought Mangustas for the same mission for much less money).

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 25):
But don't those guns have a modern IR capability as well?

Define 'modern' when it comes to soviet era weaponry. They were always two to three generations behind us when it came to deployable weaponry in the armies they supplied that faced us.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 25):
but with the added weight to the ARH/ RAH-70 with it's armament

I'm hoping that the RAH-70 won't suffer as bad as the OH-58D....it's carrying pretty much the same payload and has more engine.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 26):
It's too bad a lot of what we discovered about Soviet technology is not public realm. Sufficed to say, Soviet military hardware - for the most part - was grossly overestimated.

to say the least
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
AirSpare
Topic Author
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:13 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:38 am

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 26):
Anyway, I discovered what a lot of military analyses knew since the fall of Soviet Empire...

OT but relevant.

It was known prior to the end of the Cold War. The US had a lot of captured foreign miitary equipment, from the Israelis on to what was brought from Cuba and Japan. Nellis was (I imagine still) full of examples of Foreign Military Threats.

UH60FtRucker thank you for the inputs, you made a mediocre thread (mine) end decently.

Quoting CTR (Reply 7):
3) There are congressmen and senators keeping the V-22 alive solely for political reasons.

Way, way back, when I was AD AF, the Osprey was under development. The aviation press showed drawings of it landing in NYC, saying this was the greatest thing to relieve airport congestion. This predated the internet! I'm not even going to bother to try to find links, I'm sure they exist somewhere. So yes, about 5 years into the program, the military tried to kill it but was waved off by congress.

CTR-I agree, let's let teh thread die.

Brgds~md
Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:24 pm

Airspare,

Your thread, but please don't quote me out of context. My entire statement was:

Quoting CTR (Reply 7):
There are three 20th century conspiracy theories that refuse to die:

1) There is an alien spaceship hidden in Area 51.

2) There was a second gunman helping Oswald in Dealy Plaza.

3) There are congressmen and senators keeping the V-22 alive solely for political reasons.

Building on AFEaviator's statement:

Quoting AFEaviator (Reply 19):
Hopefully the next tilt-rotor (( if there ever is another made )) will not have the compromises in the design ( like having to fit on a ship )built into it.

His hope is fulfilled in the BA609 tiltrotor. The BA609 has none of the folding compromises of the V-22 and has the added capability of a pressurized fuselage allowing it to fly at 25K to maximize engine and rotor efficiency and avoid adverse weather.

There are over 70 deposits of 100K placed for BA609 orders. NetJet also has a letter of agreement for approximtely 50 609's.

So the prediction of tiltrotors flying out of NYC may yet come true...

Have fun,

CTR
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:41 pm

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 27):
What we should deal away with is the Osprey engineers. They should go to the school of engineers that built the XV-15. Christ, this thing can practically do aerobatics without the problems the Osprey has had.

I think you're pretty misinformed here:

1. Many, many engineers in common between the projects. Not just Bell, btw as most think, Boeing as well. The original XV-15 had OK performance but did not really hit its full potential until Boeing built much improved composite blades for it.
2. XV-15 has no wing stow, no rear ramp, and no payload capability to speak of. Not nearly as difficult of a problem as the V-22 now is it? Oh yeah, it also has very low range when compared to V-22.
3. XV-15 is every bit as vulnerable to vortex ring as V-22. As has been noted earlier, this is actually less of a problem for a tilt rotor than for a conventional helicopter. It's not a difficult thing to avoid this.

FYI, here's a few things the V-22 engineers screwed up when "improving" the XV-15:

1. MTOW/Empty Weight 1.8+ vs 1.3 - this is even more impressive when you factor in the structural penalties for the wing stow mechanism, rear ramp, and in flight refueling systems.
2. Range almost doubled - note that XV-15 basically had no payload either.
3. Vastly reduced vibration levels - again a more difficult problem when stow ring, ramp, etc. are added into the equation, all of these hurt you when trying to accomplish this goal.
4. Extensive simulation and testing gave much better understanding of the modal behavior of the aircraft before flight and combined with a non-kluged transmission design resulted in a much smoother program when it comes to the power train vs. the XV-15 which was troublesome at best. To be fair, sometimes budgets forced SWAGs but this was a true mess.
5. External loads capability - this may seem basic but carrying a large external load is a very big engineering problem on many levels.

It's not easy to design and manufacture a technology demonstrator like the XV-15, in fact it was quite an accomplishment. However, it's a much simpler aircraft on every level I can think of when compared to V-22. The 609 would be much more appropriate to compare to the XV-15. Hell, they even went back to PT-6 as originally planned for XV-15.
Where are all of my respected members going?
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:07 pm

Quoting AirSpare (Reply 29):
CTR-I agree, let's let teh thread die.

But that is just the problem with the Osprey program, you just can't kill the slimy, money-eating bastard!
 
Christa
Posts: 1215
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:37 pm

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:34 pm

Kill the Osprey...



 Wink
Croeso i Faes Awyr Rhyngwladol Caerdydd - Welcome to Cardiff International Airport
 
propatriamori
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2000 6:42 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:43 pm

Lots of interesting comments here, and I've been following this discussion for a while. I talked extensively with a source inside the HMM community recently who brought some interesting perspective to my thinking on the whole V-22 thing. I won't go into specifics, but basically there is some thought on the inside that an out and out cancellation is possible. Personally, I don't think that the V-22 will ever go away 100% as too many careers have been tied to the program and too much money has been thrown at it. This comment reflects the Conventional Wisdom best...

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 22):
The V-22 advantage only really pays dividends when their doing a SPECOPs type mission which by nature are not usually too terribly large in size, otherwise a conventional helo would be just fine (and at 1/2 to 1/3 the cost, much wiser to procure in large numbers.) If it were up to me I'd carry about as many V-22's as I do CH-53 (four) on my LHD's and make the bulk of my medium lift (about ten to twelve) with a conventional, modern helo such as an MH-60S, H-92, US-101, or even an NH-90.

Although the spending so far has been too extensive to justify an SOF-only role. Some of the Medium lift in the Corps is going to be V-22 or nobody is going to get any. You probably will not see the CH-46's replaced 1-1 with V-22's. Currently the community sees the front runner for replacing the rest of the medium lift as the 101, as it has already gone through the approval and testing for the VIP requirement.

There is already an active squadron of V-22's and much of the decision on the V-22's future will be based on how things go with that squadron.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:32 am

Quoting Propatriamori (Reply 34):
but basically there is some thought on the inside that an out and out cancellation is possible. Personally, I don't think that the V-22 will ever go away 100% as too many careers have been tied to the program and too much money has been thrown at it

I don't think an outright cancellation could happen (although it would be warranted,) so I'm hoping that the buy is cut in half and that the V-22's are used in a special role a la the heavy lift 53's, and like you mention the US-101 would be utterly ideal for Marine Medium Lift squadrons.



Quoting Propatriamori (Reply 34):
You probably will not see the CH-46's replaced 1-1 with V-22's

That's the problem - the Marines are going to give up flight time for speed and that just isn't worth the price. The Marines need a true medium lift rotary winged helo and the V-22 is just too expensive to obtain in that amount.

Quoting Propatriamori (Reply 34):
There is already an active squadron of V-22's and much of the decision on the V-22's future will be based on how things go with that squadron.

VMM-263 is working up for deployment to Iraq next year - and their skipping the boat ride all together last I heard. I have a Navy friend who will be accompanying that squadron over there in a support role for thier first deployment, I certainly hope and prey that bird keeps them at least no less safe than their current rides that I used to work on. HMM-266 just stood down a few weeks ago and will be the next V-22 squadron to stand up sometime next year as VMM-266.
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:40 am

I would agree on canceling the production of the Osprey , but continue some work on the technology. Looking at the situation the US is faced with now the need for proven technology is required. Upgrade of proven designs like OH-58 CH-53 UH-60 seems to make alot more sence than new equipment. During the cold war the emphisis was on staying ahead of the technology curve presented by the USSR. In my estimation staying ahead is no longer the top priority. The US has real needs to support the troops on the ground with whatever they need. Upgrading proven platforms , which I assume shortens operational integration time, should be the priority.
You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:14 am

Should We Kill The Osprey?

Isn't it on the endangered/protected-species list? That would be illegal.
Ain't I a stinker?
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:47 am

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 37):
Should We Kill The Osprey?

Isn't it on the endangered/protected-species list? That would be illegal.

But if a tree in the middle of the forest falls down and no one heard it, did it really make any sound falling or not?  Smile
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5181
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:15 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 38):
But if a tree in the middle of the forest falls down and no one heard it, did it really make any sound falling or not?

"Ahh, that is so profound Grasshopper (aka David Carradine), but remember that the ground has ears and it will ring far and wide in the halls of Capitol Hill and the Pentagon and the boardrooms of Wall Street."  Smile
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Should We Kill The Osprey?

Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:50 am

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 39):
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 38):
But if a tree in the middle of the forest falls down and no one heard it, did it really make any sound falling or not?

"Ahh, that is so profound Grasshopper (aka David Carradine), but remember that the ground has ears and it will ring far and wide in the halls of Capitol Hill and the Pentagon and the boardrooms of Wall Street."

Why does that remind me of a movie Will Ferrell should play in?  Smile

Cross your fingers DevilDogs - "HMM" isn't killed just yet!


http://ch149.no-ip.org:8080/coppermine/albums/04_08_24/normal_chUSMC2.jpg

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests