While the first Marine Osprey squadron floats its way to the Persian Gulf for a deployment to Iraq, Air Force Special Ops pilots are in the middle of a test, evaluation and training period to get their own CV-22s into the fight.
With all the previous disasters in the program, it’s good to see the plane finally seems to be somewhat out of the woods. I know a clutch of defense reporters who have their pencils sharpened for the day an Osprey crashes in Iraq — that “see, we told you so” theme running through the story won’t be hard to miss.
But after flying in it myself — and flying in a lot of different helicopters as well — let’s just say it’s good to see a bit of “normalcy” descending on a program that is going to take vertical take-off and landing flight tactics to a whole new level.
Military.com reported today…
“There are a couple of routes out there,” said Lt. Col. Todd Lovell, commander of the 71st Special Operations Squadron at Kirtland Air Force Base. “On the route from Clovis to Albuquerque, Moriarty is right under the route.”
The Ospreys practice landings and takeoffs at the local airport as they fly the routes.
Lovell, who started training at Kirtland in the summer of 2006, is the head of the training force for the CV-22 Osprey.
“Anyone who will fly an Osprey comes through here,” Lovell said in a phone interview.
The CV-22 is an Air Force modified version of the U.S. Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey. The Air Force first tested the aircraft at Edwards Air Force Base in California in September 2000. Lovell was part of that team.
Lovell said the unique aspect of the Osprey, in addition to its speed and range, is the fact that it can land in the same amount of space as a helicopter.
At almost 60 feet long, 22 feet tall and with a wingspan of 84 feet, the Osprey’s cruising speed is 277 mph.
The crew is two pilots and two flight engineers.
“There are very few planes with navigators anymore,” Lovell said. “With GPS and inertial navigation systems it simplifies the task … One of the (pilots) is flying while the other is doing the navigation function, helping to think ahead as to where the mission is going. You work as a team.”
One flight engineer sits in the back and is responsible for the troops while scanning the area for anyone who might shoot at the aircraft. The other engineer sits in the jump seat in the front and helps with navigation functions.
Training for the pilots lasts 10 months.
“Training is done in two phases,” Lovell said. “First phase is that pilots go to North Carolina and train with the Marines for four months on an MV-22, then they come back here for the CV-22 course. The first phase is how to fly a tiltrotor. Then what we do here is mission training, getting them ready for combat flying at night, flying low level and threats.”
The Osprey is uniquely helpful for transporting up to 24 troops into battle.
“An airplane would have to land in an airfield,” Lovell said. “Or the guys would have to parachute out the back. (The Osprey) is a lot safer for troops and they can all land in the same area. Twenty– four guys running off together is much safer than twenty-four guys separated by 50 yards, even.”
Lovell said the CV-22 Osprey is a complex machine for complex missions.
“The airplane is absolutely unique,” Lovell said. “There’s nothing else in the world that can do the things that it does. We’re quite lucky that we’ve got it finally in service. We absolutely love flying it.”
Estancia Valley residents can expect to see them overhead again as they train in the area.
Saw your video and was wondering…did you have any hi-res stills to go with it
“…Twenty– four guys running off together is much safer than twenty-four guys separated by 50 yards, even“
Uh, yeah, right. So the one large target with all the eggs in it is safer? The 60′ Long aircraft with 80′ wings that also happens to have a humungous heat signature? The aircraft with NO defensive armament? Who the F writes this sh*t?
Solomon, I tried to do both…but I’m just not skilled enough as a shooter to do vid and stills…
Steven…I respectfully disagree. Snake eaters is now used as a slang term for all spec ops…just like “commando”…and, yes, I know they don’t like it…
“out of the woods” ??
Out of the frying pan, more like…deploying the Osprey to somewhere that it’s going to be shot at will at least prove something. But I’m very sorry if it means that more lives are going to be lost as a result.
Wonder what they’ll replace it with?
Mainstream media c. 1984…
“The Bradley looks like a tank and acts like a tank but it can’t protect our troops like a tank. It’s a death trap, and should never have been bought and it’s going to get our troops killed!“
– Wrong. It’s not a tank, it’s not meant to be a tank, and it turns out it’s pretty damn good, after all.
Mainstream media c. 1988
“The Apache is an overpriced piece of crap. It can’t fly in the rain or dust or anywhere, and it’s going to get our troops killed!“
– Wrong. Overpriced, maybe. But it’s a helluva tank killer and close air support aircraft.
Mainstream media c. 2003
“The Stryker is overpriced and underarmored and useless on today’s battlefield and it’s going to get our troops killed!“
– Wrong. Stryker units (with, admittedly, extra armor) are the “go-to” units in the toughest areas of Iraq.
And now this about the Osprey. See a pattern here?
Is it asking too much to have reporters covering the military to have 1/2 of a clue about what they’re talking about? You wouldn’t ask a sports reporter to cover a baseball game who doesn’t know about the DH rule or what’s a ground-rule double, would you? Can we at reporters covering this who know the military as well as the average sports reporter knows baseball ?
Please?
The 60′ Long aircraft with 80′ wings that also happens to have a humungous heat signature? The aircraft with NO defensive armament? Who the F writes this sh*t?
Eh, chief, if you haven’t noticed, they do not do hot LZ landings much anymore. Not exactly Vietnam out there, tough guy.
That’s kind of the point with the V-22. It has a separate mission with separate capabilities. If they wanted it to be a faster Huey gunship, they would have–get this–bought Blackhawks or UH-1Ys. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UH-1Y_Venom
For some folks, if you have only a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Don’t give these guys torque wrenches. They’ll hammer it until it fits.
I’m confused.
The article states:
“There are very few planes with navigators anymore,” Lovell said. “With GPS and inertial navigation systems it simplifies the task …
Then Lovell goes on to say that in addition to the co-pilot helping with nav there is also a flight engineer helping with nav (in addition to a flight engineer helping the troops on board).
Does the CV22 always require a 4 (or 3) man crew?
I understand an extra crewman to help the troops on a mission but what modern aircraft requires more than a two man crew for transport jobs?
In the Marine edition, at least, I have to echo the “separate mission, separate capabilities” notion.
One of the big virtues of an Osprey over a comparable capacity helicopter is that it allows the ship from which it is being deployed to stay further out of harms way without jeapordizing the mission to land fairly far inland at a place with no airstrip.
Also, however vulnerable an Osprey may be to enemy fire, I have yet to see any convincing argument that a helicopter is less vulnerable. Its biggest advantage in this regard is that it spends less time during which it can be shot at between its point of departure and its destination. If you spend half an hour in transit, instead of an hour, that is probably safer.
Likewise, one of the big virtues of an Osprey over paratroop deployment is that the Osprey offers a two way trip, while parashoots generally only work in the down direction.
I was a crew chief on the H-46, the craft the V-22 replaces. On the ’46, the engines are internal and can actually be adjusted in flight. The ’22 has no such capability. The ’22 does not really need a crew chief especially as it is not armed. But two enlisted crew chiefs with the two commissioned pilots is standard, so they keep them as part of convention; technically the 46 or 53 do not need the crew either, but it helps immensely with operations.
Roger that, Steven…I’ll reserve the “snake eater” term to Army SF from now on — though I DO understand none in the community particularly like it anyway…
Thanks…
I have searched for many weeks to find an article about this topic and I will continue to come back here for every articles. Thanks…
Eva Maryam
No matter what else the V-22 can do, I think one of it’s most useful missions will probably be the medevac / troop transport missions. It can land without an airstrip and pick up wounded and get them to a field hospital in at least half the time that a traditional helicopter can get them there. It will save a lot of lives
?
FX
FX
FX ?
FX ?
?
FX
FX ?
FX ?
FX ?
?
Abnaki Ski & Outing Club
The Ave Maria Foundation
?
FX
FX