I just got off the flight line from a day aboard “Steadfast 04,” an MV-22 Osprey from the New River, N.C.-based Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263 deployed here at al Asad air base in Iraq. I’m putting together a longer story about my day and interviews I had with crew, maintainers and commanders with the squadron, but here are my preliminary impressions.
You ride one, you’ll never want to go back to anything else. Period.
It just so happened that my flight from Fallujah to al Asad was on an Osprey. I was jammed in there with about ten other pax, their gear and a box full of supplies they call “tri-walls” for their three-ply cardboard construction. The guy next to me was a SEAL who’s working here training Iraqi army troops. It was his first time on an Osprey.
Shouting over the engine noise, I asked him what he thought. He beamed a huge smile and gave a hardy thumbs up. Then he told me…
“I’ve ridden on CH-53s about five times before…it takes forEVER,” he shouted as we sped across the blackened desert. That three-engined beast is really the only thing comparable in this AO to the Osprey (the Army’s CH-47 is a good comparison too) but the MV-22 blows the Super Stallion out of the water in this medium lift role.
The performance of the Osprey compared to the helicopter it’s replacing — the CH-46 Sea Knight — is like night and day. The most dramatic thing you notice here in a “combat” environment is the extreme altitude gain and loss the MV-22 can pull. It literally jumps off the landing pad and within seconds goes nose high and skyrockets to anywhere between 5,000 and 9,500 feet. The pull up and nose down to the LZ can be so jarring you think you’re going to fall out the back…and the pressure on your ears is borderline painful.
“Make sure their heads aren’t exploding,” said Steadfast 04 co-pilot, Capt. Lee York, to his crew chief, Gunnery Sgt. Mike Brodeur.
“They’re okay, sir,” came Brodeur’s voice over the intercom as he surveyed the wide-eyed Marines sitting along the Osprey’s bulkhead.
My ears still haven’t come back to normal.
– Christian
(Cross-posted at my “From the Front” blog.)
{ 39 comments… read them below or add one }
Well, at first I was very skeptical that these would even work (design too complicated, a maint. nightmare, etc.). After the first crashes I thought that the military should drop this project like a hot potatoe. When I read an article with comments from the users/passengers as favorable as those Christian posted then some of the skepticism goes away.
NICE!
What a gal.
This bird isn’t going anywhere! I (contrary to you, Jack) have always thought that they would get the MV-22 into use. Such a useful and extraordinary design is bound to be complex, but the benefits reaped are always tremendous. Reading this article would make a millionaire want a new toy…
These aircraft sound like there putting the twin-rotor helicopters to shame.And another thing, if these aircraft are so good why doesn’t the army buy some?
I’d like one for commuting in & out of NYC and would still put a vulcan gatling to good use but maybe I would use paint balls! Why DOESN”T the Army purchase?
The thing is a giant target, and needs about twice the space to land it looks like. It also needs some kind of armament besides the increased ROF .50 cal that they use on the back ramp. Doesn’t do a whole lot of good unless you drop ass-first into an LZ and that wouldn’t exactly sit well with the people who are supposed to jump out the back! Great technology and all. But I don’t think it will replace the better helicopters which are able to land in more hostile environments.
Sure it’s a great toy. And the performance looks good (so long as you don’t look too closely at maintenance records, availability etc).
What critics have homed in on is the price (which is astronomical) and the safety record – the thing still needs a redesign for the engine fire problem. The important thing is to arrive alive: one crash wipes out all of that ‘woohoo’ feelgood factor. I wouldn’t want to have to explain to anyone’s grieving parents how wonderful the extra speed is.
Isn’t every transport helicopter a giant target too? Haven’t the oh so wonderful 47s been shot down in Afghanistan?
You are looking at the future of assault transports here. It may be just the beginning, but future variants will only improve on this technology.
Besides, the 53 Echos crash all the time and have horrible maintenance records too. Marines don’t feel comfortable flying in one unless there is hydraulic oil covering the deck.
DC2
@ david, et al
The Osprey is being researched for a possible remote -controlled turret on the belly for 360-degree fire.
Regards to concern that the gun could shoot the Osprey itself, i.e. rotor blades: “The gun will never, ever point at a part of the aircraft.” BAE Systems says.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1672497,00.html
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/10/defense_ospreygun_071009n/
I was in a unit with C-130s and H-53s for years. You could always tell the aircrews apart by whose flight suits weren’t covered in hydraulic fluid. We’d go cross country to the same places from time to time and the H-53 guys would always load up their two major tools: a big bag of rags and a couple of cases of ‘H-5606′.
As to the Tilt-Rotor arming issue, Originally there was a concept for a smaller and more agile attack tiltrotor that was to be the armed escort for the transport. That design actually got to a full-scale model mockup stage, and was called the Bell BAT (Bell Attack Tiltrotor) and it was wicked cool. There used to be a good pic of it someplace (black paint job) but it seems to have disappeared off the web. Anybody seen it lately?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Black Hawk. Who says that we have to design a new helicopter? The UH-60 is the most reliable and highest performing helicopter that the Army has ever had. So long as you keep armaments, electronics and power plants current, this aircraft could be used for decades if not a century. We should be building more of them to retire ageing UH-60′s that are beyond their useful life. The UH-60 is perfect for Army operations. If the Navy & Air Force want a fast deep terain vehicle, although I don’t know why as they do not command Army soldiers on the ground, then let their budgets go after a limited use unreliable rotary wing hybrid. The UH-60 fits perfectly into the Army’s battlefield of today and the future, which is a fast attack/support utility aircraft to advance the battlefield along soon to be established supply routes.
Dr. Belgen,
Forgive me for not reading all the comments, but I didnt see anyone call out the 60. And off the top of my head I dont recall hearing that the Army is replacing the 60 with the MV-22. Right now the only combat squadron of 22s is a Marine Squadron.
As for the Air Force and Navy putting thier paws on the 22, heres my thoughts. The Air Force should have it because, well thier job is in the air and the 22 does go in the air, plus they have the money for it, not that Marines do(we cut back the number of MRAP we originally ordered). The Navy, well I dont know its just the Navy, someone else can stick up for them.
To everyone else. Here is my experience with 22. They required a whole new test bench and its own seperate gear to do repairs. Alot of its gear is unfamiluar unmongst non east coast Marines. Repairs take alot of time, and the bird is constently have Non Destructive Inspections. Its sole purpose in the Marine Corps is to replace the very very old 46. Though I did here some rumors about some 53 squadrons too.
Either way it lives up to its daily duties in the sandbox.
Glad to hear the news from Christian –it sounds like a great ride. Also, thanks to MOS 6062 for the real world tech insight.
“Why DOESN”T the Army purchase?”
The Army and the Marines have different strategies for waging war, even if to the casual observer they seem to be doing a lot of the same stuff these days. The Marines are generally the tip of the spear, while the army is the shaft that follows through. The marines need the V-22 so they can launch over the horizon attacks from the sea and get men into the battle faster and over longer distances. The army’s mission as a heavier force means they don’t need their aircraft operating as far ahead of the main line of battle, thus they can stick with slower, shorter legged, but cheaper and smaller aircraft. An H-60 does the job fine for the army, and has the advantage of being able to get into smaller LZs and present a smaller target than the osprey. Why would the army trade five or so of them for one osprey when they really don’t need the extra capability?
SMSgt Mac, my googlefu skillz turned this up: http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/bell_bat.php
that it?
Off-topic,Strategypage.com has put out an article on the F-16 proposed for India called the F-16IN
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20080118.aspx
“F-16IN Given Super Powers”.We need another “stealth versus non-stealth” battle royal & this should stir it up.Besides,it(the F-16IN) has canards too.
Back on topic of the Osprey,the army was originally in on the project to develop it,but for some reason they pulled.I tell you though,when I saw that Osprey fly over my house,I was very impressed.
For some reason the army pulled out of the project,thats what I meant to say in my last post.
Off-topic again,the F-16IN is supposed to have “super cruise” capability & top of the line AESA radar making it competitive with the F-22.Please oh please,somebody put up a thread on it & “let’s get ready to rumble” over it.
Also,here I go again,I read that Israel is already making long range external fuel tanks & conformal fuel tanks for the F-35 JSF they plan to be getting…
Now,back to the Osprey.Does anybody have any “Osprey” questions?
Agree with lots of you guys that the Marines and Army have different requirements. The V-22 provides speed at payloads halfway between the lift of a UH-60M and CH-47F that both cost a lot less. The Army/Air Force/Marines need something more like a VTOL C-130J on lots of steroids:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/01/14/220796/heavy-duty-us-army-backs-tiltrotor-as-future-battlefield.html
The above concept is brought to you by the same guy whose company first came up with the Predator and A160 Hummingbird…before General Atomics and Boeing.
But it will take money, and the CBO has suggested that Joint Heavy Lift rotorcraft could be a billpayer to finance other Army helicopter modernization:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8865/11-30-Helicopters.pdf
Yet making this heavy lift rotorcraft and 3,200 other current modernized helicopters a reality would cost only about a billion more annually for the next 23 years than what the Army has spent on helicopters the past 20 years. That amounts to $76.6 billion spread over 23 years which seems about the same for 3353 aircraft that the Marines our spending on far fewer V-22 and CH-53K…and the USAF has spent up to now on 183 F-22s. If its OK for them, why not the Army?
And of course the Marines and Air Force could buy them, too.
Vercingetorix,
That’s not the pic (it was a color indoor one, but that is the plane. Thanks!
RE: ‘Supercruise’ F-16. I saw this a couple of days ago at http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080038698&ch=1/16/2008%2012:11:00%20PM
and asked a couple of colleagues at LM about it. This was the first they heard about it and I notice nobody from LM is quoted as claiming supercruise. I think their marketing guys are doing impressive work. Unless they are offering them a cleaned up F-16XL, (which isn’t really an F-16 anymore is it?) this is vaporware.
SMSgt Mac
The picture I saw of what the “super cruise” F-16IN is supposed to look like was a normal looking F-16,except it also had canards like a Typhoon,Gripen,or Rafale.It wasn’t delta winged though.
Now back to Osprey,weren’t they talking about making a BA609 Tiltrotor into an armed escort for the Osprey,is that what is being described?
Re: BA609 vis a vis BAT.
There may be just a familial relationship: but the BAT is a much older concept than the 609. I’m pretty sure the BAT idea was hatched at about the same time as V-22. I think the 609 is a logical civilan outgrowth of the V-22 vs. an outgrowth of the BAT. The 609 may look a lot like the even older prototype XV-15, but there is a world of difference between the two.
I’ll keep looking for the Super F-16 and any data.
SMSgt Mac
I may be mistaken about the picture I saw that I thought was an F-16IN.They are only showing the bottom of the plane with its armament of missiles &,I think,bombs & for all I know it could be a picture of a Su-30.
http://wordpress.com/tag/f-16in/
I do remember that I read on Globalsecurity.org that they were considering a military version of the BA609 that would be armed. I also took a look at that BAT & it definitely is not the BA609.
This might be the most insane question asked on this board…but before the MV-22 left, it was sporting a pretty glossy grey color scheme. Did they tone it done since its been in theater or is it still as shiny??
Solomon,
I think the “shiny” MV-22 is actually the CV-22. For some reason they have that look to them. Every picture I have seen of the MV-22 is in a dull gray color.
I also saw a CV-22 at the airshow here and it was in a glossy paint job. I imagine it might have something to do with the type of paint for signature reduction purposes (visual, ir, radar). But I don’t know for sure.
Of course, you might call it haze gray. You know, the color of the ships you guys ride in to war. You see, the Navy even makes you ride in haze gray helos these days.
DC2
USAF CV-22s are darker gray with a light gray wavy bottom similar to older painted B-52s, USMC MV-22s are lighter gray and have somewhat of a shine to them.
Also SMSgt Mac I found this, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22-escort.htm, doesn’t appear to be what you were thinking of but I thought it cool to bring up. Looks somewhat similar though with the butterfly tail.
There is no such thing as a glossy CV-22 (unless it just came out of being built and hasn’t been painted yet). All Air Force Ospreys are a darker gray than the MV-22s. And the Marine’s aren’t the only people with a combat squadron of Ospreys. The Air Force has one as well.
ARTICLE NAME: OSPREY. PERIOD.(?!)
OKAY,…THIS ANSWERS A LOT OF QUESTIONS.
I thought the thing was gender nutural. Guess Not. This answers a LOT of questions for me and illistrates why you’ve got nothing but problems with it. This is a combination problem: As with all things mechanical and combinded with the gender that has “periods”: “SOONER OR LATER, THEY’LL GIVE YOU TROUBLE!”
JD
And I have experienced many matters, also met many friends, I have been deceived to buy isk by the unprincipled person, but I have been rescued also by the friends of mine.
Although I already buy dofus kamas to you, and you will not put this in your heart.
I know that you are not a sloppy person, you have your aspiration, have your ideal. You will not care the game Habbo gold. Therefore you are doomed to leave Habbo, leave friends who these share some hardships, and leave me who am lonely apprentice.
Finally, I gained have sufficed the LOTRO Gold, had the family. We were in together finally.
Now, you have Hellgate London Palladium and you might buy tens of billions experience values.
If I cannot complete the duty, I will spend many hero gold and have no anything to receive.
So I spent some mabinogi gold to study. After school study the lovable gray wolf became collapses at the first blow.
Every time, when I received the imvu credits, I always gave them to you.
Now I have more Sword of the New World Vis in this game. Of course the Sword of the New World Gold is gained by I upgrade and kill the monsters. If you kill a big monsters you can get more Sword of the New World money.
My friends also told me that there is a web site http://www.hameim.com supplies cheap Lunia gold. If one day you want to buy Lunia gold you can go to the above company.