DoD Buzz contributing editor Greg Grant has a great piece running on our sister site about maneuvering restrictions placed on Osprey pilots that could make them more vulnerable to MANPAD encounters in combat.
GAO also said: The V-22 had maneuvering limits that restrict its ability to perform defensive maneuvers. The wording in that sentence sounded odd. Is GAO saying the plane cannot perform defensive maneuvers or is there some regulation against it performing certain maneuvers? Not the same thing.
I asked a Marine officer who is very knowledgeable on the subject of V-22 survivability about the GAOs findings. The officer requested anonymity so as to speak frankly about a politically charged issue and I thought it important to at least present another voice in the Osprey debate.
The officer said the maneuvering limits in the official Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization were set by engineers who did not carry out the full battery of tests on the plane because of money shortages during the operational test phase. The Ospreys troubled developmental history meant the focus was on keeping the plane in the air, not on testing it in battlefield situations.
Read his entire story HERE to see what led to the NATOPS restrictions on radical pitching of the V-22 to lure surface to air missiles into countermeasures and more on why those restrictions were put into place and whether the Osprey can actually endure the maneuvers anyway.
But I also wanted to point out here a great comment that followed the story in the Buzz discussion session.
According to a current V-22 pilot (seems from AFSOC) the critics are full of it:
and lacks the maneuverability to evade hostile ground fire.
Compared to what? A helicopter? A C-130? A fighter? It is none of theseso how can one say it lacks sufficient maneuverability? Ignorance and drinking too much kool-aidthats how.
I have been flying on this aircraft for 5+ years. Before that, I spent 8 years on the MH-53 Pavelow. The CV-22, like the MH-53 is designed (IR and RF countermeasures) to go into anything up a medium threat environment. Very few aircraft go into a high threat environment. Those that do, do it with a gorilla package of support (SEAD, CAP, ect). Further, to my knowledge NO tactical transport aircraft today or ever, go into, intended or otherwise, a high threat environment without lots of support and even then, the threat is usually degraded beforehand.
You take my word for what it is worth
The V-22 or at least the CV-22 is perfectly capable of operating in a medium threat environment. The combination of defensive countermeasures, speed, altitude, noise signature, IR signature and yes, maneuverability makes the aircraft very capable in a combat zone.
Most of these hacks are just repeating what some anti-V-22 lobbiest said to them or some biased report contains. The bottom line here is that this just another effort to cancel the V-22. NEWS FLASHit wont happen.
The USMC has retired over half of its H-46s and is fully invested in the transition to the V-22. USSOCOM is fully behind this aircraft and what it willis bringing the SOF war fighter. Additionally, there is WAY too much support from members of congress, on both sides of the aisle, to keep this program going.
I will agree, however, reliability leaves a lot to be desired. However, I have seen marked improvement over the last 12 months. The issue we are dealing with has to do with partsnot the capability or safety of the aircraft. The biggest issue has been parts that arent supposed to break, breaking. Parts that are supposed to have a 500 hour life breaking at 250 hours and all of this with a VERY immature supply system. The positive side of things here is that he engineers have been very responsive and effective at improving their parts. The aircraft is very capableat least from my USAF/SOF perspective. I will concede however, that if reliability continues to be a problem in the long term, eventually capability will be impacted.
We have put almost 60,000 hours on the V-22 since we returned to flight in 2003. To date the V-22 has been on only 4 combat deployments over the last 20 months. Simply put, we are only in the 1st quarterthere is long way to go.
You all well know I’m a minority supporter of the V-22 for various reasons, not least of which for its superior performance. Most of the critics of the plane have never flown in one — and have particularly never flown in one in a combat zone under austere conditions. I have.
But don’t take my word for it, take the word of AFSOC pilot “Jim” who says the plane is more capable than its helicopter predecessors and that the problems that critics cling to are being worked out as the plane increasingly flies in the hands of combat-veteran pilots throughout the services.
– Christian
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
When the most expensive USMC piece of equipment can deploy with its MEU in OEF , we can debate its merits. You can read about Marine encountering supply difficullities in Afghanistan and debate whether the Osprey is fit to survive in a active combat zone, in the same news source.
What is the point if it cant even get there. Why because the BS deployment in Iraq, with tons of Boeing enablers, still wore it out.
THe test is in OEF , we are still waiting…
I’m one of those engineers (on the govt. side) that, as “Jim” said, is working day in and day out to improve all the reliability issues. He certainly made accurate statements on that front, and it’s true that from a reliability standpoint, the aircraft still has a ways to go, but I’ve got chart after chart showing the before and after for various improvements and the attending improvement in mean flight hour between failures. And I only work on two of the systems of the aircraft (one of which was one of the top degraders of the aircraft, and despite the fact that it worked just fine, crews never turned it on because they felt that as soon as they did, it would break).
The trick is that most of these fixes are small, incremental, and will take time to prove out. They (the contractor) fix one piece here, one piece there. Each one gives a small improvement, and on the whole the situation improves. It takes more time than one would think to implement these changes, and sometimes, when you fix one part, you end up finding the “next worst” item, and you have to fix that as well. It’s really not as straightforward as everyone would love it to be, and there’s no silver bullet answer. Not like fixing a tire on your car. And even if it were, how would you prove that your new tire lasted longer than the last one? You have to drive on it for a while.
There’s no question that over the years that I have been here doing this job, the situation has improved (both in my area and others that I have heard about around here), and it will continue to do so. Like “Jim” says, the system works, and we are working every day to make sure that it works all the time.
I hate to say it but this continuing Osprey saga reminds me of the M-14 vs. M-16 soap opera, 40 plus years and counting…
Of course all the bravado will evaporate as soon as the pilots start getting shot down in combat. Then they will be squealing for a fix and claim to be betrayed.
But perhaps th war will be over before the Osprey gets deployed on anything real. The Marines are making sure that the program is fully front loaded by delivering them all before risking one in combat.
You gotta love being a contractor with clients like these.
I’m sorry, but from an engineering perspective the fact that there have been “parts breaking that are not supposed to break” is most certainly an issue with the aircraft…lest we forget than any aircraft is merely a complicated system of “parts”.
I get really tired of seeing programs take ten years to come to fruition, just to find they did not get it right and they have to “re-engineer” everything…..
I am a fan of the Osprey, in the way the Marines are. I love what it can do, but hate the complexity…..
The next generation may be much simpler. By using electric motors to spin the props and keeping the power plants and battery backup in the body will significantly reduce complexity and greatly increase reliability.
With such reduced complexity, four props will be possible. Allowing for landing with only three operational…..
DARPA is also funding a “rotodyne” configuration. One prop to get airborne, non-moving engines to go forward.
I just hope they do not ignore better designs due to political considerations and money already spent.
But they probably will….
If all the people now chafing in their bunched panties over the ‘complexity’ and challenges in fielding and operating a completely new kind of weapon system had been in charge during prehistoric times, we would still be sitting in our caves ostracizing anyone and everyone who came up with a new way to make fire.
‘First’ aircraft in any category always break new ground, and always have at least one or two growing pains – as anyone with any real experinece will tell you. Get a sense of history, people, and get some appreciation of what the V-22 folks are working through (and under a microscope no less).
‘Painless progress’ is an oxymoron in the real world.
It’s MANPADS, never MANPAD. MANPADS = man-portable air defense system. MANPADS is not plural for MANPAD; Rather MANPADS is the proper acronym.
FTR…I am a Flight Engineer.
And for the record, almost anyone who’s piloted a plane with an FE requirement will probably tell you the FEs know more about their planes’ systems and performance than the pilots.
There I was….
We were flying cross-country, coming back from a deployment in a C-130. I was sitting on th eCrew Chief rack behind the operators on headsets watching the world go by. The Pilot was reading the AF Times, and the Co-pilot was reading Fortune. The FE kicked the pilot seats when we got a radio call, calling out traffic ‘no factor’ as fast as ATC was alerting us, and managing the fuel transfer systems and monitoring instruments all the while. After a while, the Pilot comes over the Intercom: Man! They’re talking about cutting pilot bonuses again! I’ll never forget the ‘WTF?’ look on the FE’s face when he turned around and looked at me.
P.S. Anyone who’s the least bit familiar with the FE job on the Pave Lows can tell you that it was the highest workload flying, in the most hostile ‘office’ in the sky. So intense, the Pave Lows routnely flew with two FEs that would rotate in and out of the center seat.
Just today I read that representatives from the Man-Bunny Matrix witnessed extensive V-22 testing in Utah.
http://manbunnymatrix.net/