Our friend Bob Cox sent us his latest jibe at the MV-22 Osprey.
Editor’s note: From my standpoint I think Bob’s criticism is unfair. I understand that the Marine Corps sold the Osprey as “self-deployable.“
But keep in mind the plane is intended to replace the CH-46 Sea Knight — which cannot self-deploy at all. The Corps doesn’t fly its much more powerful CH-53E Super Stallions to the war zone either, even though technically they are self-deployable due to their in-flight refueling capability. So why is it such a big deal that the Osprey isn’t?
Also, there’s nothing untoward in the Corps’ desire to deploy the Osprey aboard an amphib for its first stint in the operational forces. If I were a maintainer, air boss or deck handler, I’d sure want to take all that at-sea time to work out the kinks that are bound to crop up with a flight deck — and hangar deck — filled with aircraft.
But Bob’s been covering this program for a long time as well, so we at DT think it’s important to present all sides in this important debate. One thing I think we can all agree on, however, is that we wish the VMM-263 Thunder Chickens the best of luck and a safe deployment next month.
From Bob’s Sky Talk blog:
One of the key selling points of the V-22 Osprey, one that is repeated over and over by the Marines and the Bell Helicopter-Boeing contractor team, is that the aircraft can self deploy to combat. In other words, fly high and long distances to get from one base to a combat zone — say from the U.S. to Iraq — where it can there be put into tactical use on the battlefields.
Well, for their first combat deployment with the V-22 to Iraq next month the Marines will be going by ship, Navy Times is reporting.
Itll save wear and tear on the airplane, Lt. Col. Curtis Hill said. This will also allow time to do shipboard integration operations. That will help us down the road as we look to integrate them with the [Marine expeditionary units].
All along the Marines have viewed the V-22 as a dual role aircraft, able to operate from ships or land. But the self deployment capability is highlighted over and over and as a true revolutionary breakthrough, at least when compared to slower moving, lower flying helicopters.
Of course, the reliability record of the V-22 is such that the Marines probably don’t want to take a chance on seeing several of the aircraft have to divert to landing spots along the way for repairs. The V-22s much ballyhooed trip to England last year for the Farnborough Air Show got even more attention when one plane diverted to Iceland due to engine troubles, later described as minor, and the return trip to the U.S. was delayed for other repairs.
– Christian
I’m pretty concerned about the Osprey because it is the first of it’s kind and I don’t think it’s suited for a battlefield just yet. However, as a transport it should be just fine.
I think even with a car or anything mechanical, it takes a sometime to work out the ‘long haul’ problems with changes over time. I mean.. if you redesigned a whole new engine of different specs in a new car… you drive it around the block you can say ‘hey look it works fine’. But drive it cross country.. and you’ll probably eventually find a few kinks. Not to mention the fact the even if they started in new york to fly to england that’s a hell of a trip.
The things I doubt about it suitability in a battlefield are minor cause I don’t know enough about the bird. Questions like
1: Does it have enough armour to withstand small arms (‘composite skin’?)
2: Is the fuel consumption efficient enough that you would let it go on ‘self deploy’ missions
3: Is it as fast, as capable that you’d let it replace a more specialized role such as a transport plane that would make it practical for it to go on ‘self deployable’ missions. How is it any different to have something shipped via a Globe master (or whatever) and then a Chinook to the remote location its needed?
Pray that it won’t take a heavy round in one of the gearboxes or a pressurized line.
If only one if these aircraft is lost to hostile fire, there will be some heavy criticism, for sure.
If one is lost to mechanical failure or pilot error, if won’t be much better.
Let’s hope these guys all return with a great story to tell about the Osprey.
Tanks could self-deploy from the harbour where they’re unloaded to the battlefield, but they don’t do that regularly either. Instead, they’re placed on low-boy trucks to reduce wear and tear. Or to use another example, car companies don’t self-deploy new cars from Detroit to California. That critic has just crossed the line from criticism to just holding a grudge.
car companies don’t self-deploy new cars from Detroit to California
Absolutely– I bring in goods from Asia all the time– sea transport is by far the cheapest. I cringe when I hear about all the airfreight we sent to Iraq– it must cost a fortune.
Why would you put an extra 50 to 100 hours on your airframe?
Now if C-17’s were shipped– that would look bad…
I have read articles about the V-22 in both USNI Proceedings and International Air Power. I know it has had a very development period and there has been a number of Marine deaths. If they fly it within it’s flight perimeters, there should be no problems. We can’t armor everything like the A-10. This is a transport. It is not made to attack targets or strafe soft targets. I say good luck and Godspeed to the Thunder Chickens.
When I read this article I wonder:
What is this all about? Almost every military system is deployed in theather via sea transport because this is the cheapest way to transport something.
Only because the V-22 program is a highly critisised (in the media) program this self deployment thing is an issue here.
Remember that all news is ‘made’. And we readers have to sift out the true news in the articles.
I’v seen the Osprey up close. I’m retired military.A long time back, I rode in C-119s.(flying boxcars). All crew and passengers were required to wear a parachute during all flight conditions. That was because the C-119 (flying boxcar) could not survive on one engine, and maintain flight. I see the Osprey, and I believe it has the same flight capabilities.
I am a dual rated fixed and rotor wing Airline Transport Pilot with an Engineering Degree in Aircraft Maintenance and former infantryman with the 101st Airborne Division. Having said that, I see a multitude of problems with this design concept and I fear a lot of good Marines will be lost before they get all of the bugs worked out of these machines.
A fixed wing pilots description of a helicopter: “10,000 moving parts in a constant state of self destruction surrounded by a persistent oil leak.” The Osprey isn’t much different and loses its ability to hover with one engine and lacks autorotation capability. Furthermore, the design is inherently prone to the vortex ring state where the aircraft settles in its own rotor wash. While not considered a design flaw, it is responsible for at least two non recoverable crashes that killed 23.
Finally, these are an expensive mix of hardware, software and various accessory components that must work in symphony to guarantee continued flight. It presently lacks any defensive weapons and frankly speaking, would not want to be on of the first troops to test its battle damage capability in combat let alone its crashworthiness.
That’s what they invented Guinea Pigs for…
I know you can’t armour everything… but my question was more can it resist the an ‘expected’ amount of small arms fire.
I know during Vietnam the Huey offered little for armour.… ‘Sit on your helmet so your balls don’t get blown off’. I’m just thinking of what they’d want to use this for, the roles it fulfills and it’s comparison to existing technology. For something that’s going to be flying over hostile cities or near front lines, I’d think they’d ask the same questions I am.
I don’t see this being very different than a Chinook. Again, I think I’m missing something.
The V-22 was a great idea in the mi-1980’s. Unfortunately the technology has yet to reach the sustainability level of day to day combat operations. From the early days of this Program, the Marines, did not feel the V-22 was a mature platform. Congress forced the Program to continue. The aircrew know the risks, the grunts dont have that luxury. I pray that one day we dont loose 3 or 4 of these birds in a hostile LZ and end up without the ability to extract a Company of Marines who end up KIA. This is not the proper platform now.
Personally,I don’t see why we need these new weapons anyway since we are so close to New World Order,One World Government,Peace & Safety,KUMBIYA!!!!
What if they take out a rotor?
Love peace and chicken grease!
Stop Jihad
F22 reference in the Osprey article. Currently the Raptors are guarding our NW coast from the Korean ICBM missles. The Raptor can and if called on can engage MULTIPLE targets without the targets sensor knowledge. A 21st century fighter. The Osprey is where the F14 was in its early days. USMC folks will carry the day with this aircraft. As in all NEW vehicles, the kinks need to be worked out and on.
end
One thing that most people forget is that the V-22 is designed to run on one engine..not well, but its designed to. The engines are either a modified turbo prop or turbo shaft with cross connected gear boxes, meaning that in the event of single engine failure, the other engine runs BOTH props.
Again, this would be, at best, a limp home mode, but it beats getting taken out with a tail rotor hit…
I think that the Osprey is a disaster waiting to happen. Not only has its track record been horable, but it has already claimed countless lives of my fellow Marines. I knew two Marines that were killed, as well as the rest of the thirteen Infantry men and three air crew, in the late spring of 2000 in Yuma Arizona. I think that the budget and time that was taken to get this platform in service has been a waste to the tax payers and to the Marine Corps.
The Marine Corps has always done a very good job with upgrading what they have in it’s invetory. Example, the new and approved UH-1Y, AH-1Z Cobra, and the new CH-53F model that is coming on-line.
It would have cost far less to make newer Airframes of the CH-46 Sea Knight with approved avionics, power plant, and in flight refueling capability. It would have worked, and because it has proven itself time and again it would have saved countless lives and money.
I know that the Osprey offers greater range, speed, altitude, and in-flight refueling, but is it going to be needed in future operation and conflicts? Is the newer CH-53F model not going to be able to do everything that Osprey can, other than Speed and Altitude? Will, and can the Osprey, out perform the newer CH-53 F in combat, in reliability, and in surviveability? Will its size and Rotor Disk keep it from going places that the CH-53 and other airframes can go? All these questions present problems that the Osprey wont be able to answer in a operational stand point.
I believe that like the F-35 with its single engine and huge budget, and the MV-22 Osprey with all its issues, is a concept sold and fed by the need of business, political and budgeting reasons by military and non military, rather than what was is truely needed by the military. One good example of upgrading that has made perfect since, and is worthy budget wise is the Navy’s F/A-18 E,F,and G, the Marines CH-53F, UH-1Y, and AH-1Z. These upgrades, and new platforms, ie the F/A-18 E,F, and G are new airframes, larger in size and in Power, have newer avionics, and is proof of good budget spending. They also fit the need of the services and the realities of combat today.
Hey, it’s a Marine craft, so why in heck not send a flight of Osprey out on a working cruise before they head into the thick of a ground war? They are supposed to be working sea-dogs, right?
For the US, this is a heck of a high-risk deployment. I’d have been loathe to authorize the deployment–one of those things goes down while carrying Marines, then the Osprey becomes the poster child of the Iraq Conflict. A burned-up symbol of tech hubris. I’d have much rather seen this thing sent out for a humanitarian exercise–send it out to work with the Hospital Ship Deployment or figure out a way to fit a few on the Pelileiu. Then, if there’s a major accident (god forbid) then, well, the Osprey becomes a noble failure rather than an ignominious one.
So if they want to take a slow boat to war before it’s “winner-take-all, high-stakes” proving ground, then fine by me. We’ve got enought going on already and don’t need that high-profile distraction (and maintenace resources sink) out there.
Oh my God! From my experience as working with these; I can’t believe they’re actually putting these out there like this. I knew nearly every Marine that lost their lives during test indoctrination of these aircrafts. I still hear their voices when they’d say; “see you a the E Club and first one’s on you.” Come on. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Have they really worked out all the bugs. Simulations and real time are two very different things here. Now we’re sending them out to the sand box. I mean, not only are the personnel flying them are at HIGH RISK, but what of the troops that will be depending on the pick up (extract) or awaiting the precious cargo, or re-inforcements. God be with my fellow Marines. Why is it that we’re always thought of the most expendable? Because we’re the hardest; toughest; most patriotic; Git ‘er done; hard charging; grit lov’n bunch of misfits this country can produce. I love you my brothers and Semper Fi. Even if country isn’t to us.
What I fear is if the props get stuck in the plane mode and it has to land smashing the props into the ground. And I bet if I knew what a vortex spin was I might fear that more!
Even though I sympathize with folks who have lost friends in the development of this craft, I cannot say we should throw it in the trash heap.
How many people died in developing the aircraft we fly today? How many people died just trying to crack the sound barrier?
Should those Marines been in that Osprey when they knew it had issues. Hell no. There have been mistakes made.
It seems like if you go outside the operating parameters of what this machine can do, people die.
So either they have to change the craft, or make software that does not allow the pilot to go out of its design parameters.
Lets remember why the Marines are bent on having this craft. Because storming a beach can have 50% casualty rates.
With these craft, they can go much farther inland and a hell of a lot faster than a chopper can.
Great post Dennis. You said it all short and crisp.
What matters most is what the people flyng the V-22 think of it.
I’m pretty familiar with the V-22. I’m also happy to say, I served with HMM 263 in Nam.
The aircraft has been throughly tested for years now. 263 has been flying the aircraft in excess of a year now I believe, with no problems so far. Tactics, flight plans, maintenace, crews have all been busy preparing the 22 for their mission in Iraq, and we can only hope it is uneventful and safe.
The vortex ring situation seems to have been resolved as it was one of the biggest problems they had with the aircraft in development. Redundant systems have been added to warn the crew of an approaching problem in this area. But, any chopper can go into a vortex ring situation, the 22 is no different…pilot training should have resolved this issue. It does appear the 22 more easily transitions into this state than most rotary wing aircraft but studying the phenomenon and training should end this problem.
Cabin size is a problem and oxygen supplies. The reason the 22 cannot be used for high altitude operations, no oxygen for the troops it would carry. It appears the 22 will not be operating in high altitude situations while carrying troops. This will increase the fuel consumption due to low altittude operations, so operating costs will increase.
Another problem, the 22 is not armed. There is no provision for guns for the crew members as we see on nearly all other choppers. There is some chatter about adding a minigat to the rear of the plane but this would make ingress and egress difficult for troops.
I’m not totally convinced the 22 will do everything promised, time will tell. Let’s hope they have a safe deployment and everyone returns home safe and sound.
S/F Gordon
i might appreciate a bit more of the Warthog approach to this plane/helo but, let’s see how it works out in real operational situations.
the news will help this make it’s bones in combat.
Gentleman and fellow Marines, the solution is to load on a bunch of congressman and take them on a fast deplyment into “harmsway”. According to a friend who re-hithched they are just going on show missions to no where, with standing orders to avoid the “insurgents”. Good thing as he says when they land they are held captive onboard in the resulting sandstorm praying some Jaheedist doesn’t shoot a 7 into the center of the storm.
Then you have to watch that ou don’t trip over the stupid whimp gun they put on the exit ramp.
Don’t be concerned, my buddy who rehitched emailed me that rather than ferry the troops to the enemy the standing orders are to keep the MV-22