Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand 'Ol Osprey
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Commandant Says "There is Going to Be a Crash"

V22 over London small.jpg

Earlier this week, my longtime amigo and dogged defense beat reporter Chris Castelli of Inside the Navy had breakfast (along with a number of other defense reporters) with General Conway, the Commandant of the Marine Corps. According to Chris' report, the commandant said the following:

"You know, I'll tell you there is going to be a crash. That's what airplanes do over time. And we're going to have to accept that when it happens. And we'll hear some of the folks that are not fans of the program rise up, I suspect, when that occurs."

That's an amazing statement for a service chief to make. I don't remember any similar quotes from any generals or admirals about the Super Hornet or the Raptor or any other platform. Obviously the Corps is still relatively gun-shy about this airplane.

What Gen. Conway didn't explain was why an Osprey is going to crash. Well, DT is here to help.

Now let me say up front, I'm a fan of the V-22 and believe in its potential. I want the airplane to kick butt once it gets to the tip of the spear this year. I also know a little bit about the program, having worked as PMA-275's spokesman at NAVAIR for three years (2002-2005) and having flown the sim and gone for flights in the airplane a number of times. But here is a prediction behind Gen. Conway's statement: In the first three years of fleet V-22 operations, the Marines will suffer six Class A flight mishaps with the Osprey. And here's how:

- Although VMMT-204, the Osprey RAG, is up and running, the pilots training there are relatively senior compared to other RAGs. Eventually true "nuggets" will make their way to the fleet and they will do "nugget" things.

- The test pilots (both active duty and civilian) did amazing work during the High Rate of Descent (HROD) phase of developmental test at NAS Patuxent River back in 2002 and 2003. They validated the V-22's vortex ring state (VRS) envelope. (DT readers will remember that VRS was what caused an Osprey to crash near Marana, Arizona back in 2000, killing 19 Marines.) Improvements have been made in the vertical speed displays and aural warning systems. But the fact remains that - while there are no "unknown unknowns" about VRS and that there is a buffer between the operational rate of descent limit of 800 feet per minute and where VRS occurs - the rate at which the V-22 develops a high rate of descent is unique to the V-22. Basically, the crew has to hawk the VSI gauge constantly during a descent. A moment's inattention can result in the vertical speed getting out of hand. (The test pilots actually had an inadvertant VRS entry during HROD testing because they got distracted for a second.) So imagine junior pilots during high op-tempo periods (deployed) at night, on goggles, and operating with not enough sleep (never happens if you follow NATOPS, right?) Yes, this is a training issue in that crews can be taught to watch the VSI readout on the display, but in spite of the comprehensive understanding Osprey crews have of the phenomenon (thanks to the Developmental Test Team at Pax River), somebody's going to be tired and distracted (and maybe under fire) and will enter VRS close to the ground. The outcome won't be good.

- It's unclear at this point whether or not VMM-263 will self-deploy or embark on an amphib like most USMC assault support aircraft. If they conduct sustained flight ops from an LHA or LHD, again, we will see nuggets do nugget-like things. Somebody will fly into the water while on final approach; somebody will plant one against the deck edge. And I guarantee you these things will happen at night or in bad weather.

- Ospreys will operate as multi-ships, so there's a high likelihood of a midair. Once again, when it occurs it'll be at night.

- An Osprey will be lost due to controlled flight into terrain (CFIT).

- An Osprey will have an engine failure (or fire) and be forced into an extended transit to get to somewhere safe to land. During the transit the interconnect drive shaft will fail. (The one true test of the interconnect drive shaft was very early in the program's history. The mechanism failed grossly.) Because the crew was transiting at medium altitude (8,000 feet or so) they will have the opportunity to keep the V-22 in the airplane mode while intercepting a dual-engine failure emergency glide profile. The Osprey will either ditch in the water or belly land in the desert. The "crumple zones" on the nose will work as advertised; the prop-rotors will "broomstraw" (disintegrate instead of turning into flying chunks upon impact). The crew will survive with minor injuries but the Osprey will sustain strike damage.

- The Osprey has survivability features like self-sealing tanks and composite structures that will allow the airplane to take hits and keep on going. However, one of the other features of a composite fuselage is bullets don't bounce off, they pass through like a hot knife through butter. The airplane may survive an encounter with small arms fire, but Marines flying in back might not. Another prediction: Just like the Humvee, the Marines will "up-armor" V-22s in time. They didn't do it to date because that would've kept the airplane from attaining its Key Performance Parameters (payload, range, etc.) during OPEVAL.

So that equals six lost aircraft (seven if you believe the midair will result in the loss of both Ospreys). The next time the topic comes up, Gen. Conway can offer a more complete answer.

Again, you won't hear the Air Force Chief of Staff or Chief of Naval Operations making similar comments about their new platforms, and it's not because they're unrealistic. Obviously, the Marines are still a bit "concerned" about this "revolutionary" technology they're getting, like it or not.

And beyond the mishap potential are concerns about the Osprey's sustainability. Remember, this is a program that hasn't been deployed yet but has obsolescence issues with subsystems. An item - a part of the prop-rotor gearbox, for instance - will fail at a rate not predicted by the engineers. And because they didn't predict it, the manufacture of it will not have been funded at an appropriate rate. Or worse, the company that manufactures the item will have gone out of business years ago (maybe even without the prime contractors' or government's knowledge). There will be none of these items in the supply chain and V-22s will sit idle, perhaps for months on end.

Another maintenance issue: As I mention, the V-22 fuselage is made of composite materials. It's very light, by design. But over time it's going to crack both in places the engineers expect and in places they don't expect. These cracks are going to plague the squadrons for the entire operating history of the Osprey.

And don't forget the hydraulic system: 5,000 psi and titanium tubing. Let's see how well that can be maintained in the field for an extended period.

Another major indicator of USMC confidence for the V-22 will be where they choose to base it during the first deployment. Most likely they won't be based on an amphib, not because of world events but because the Osprey doesn't really fit on any of the amphibs very well (and it also has this potential problem where it warps the flight deck with its exhaust). The "brown water" Navy isn't in a big hurry to have them come aboard.

And as far as where they're based once in theater, let's keep it very simple: If the Marines believe this is the kick ass airplane that has kept it alive and funded for all the years in spite of the setbacks and the loss of life, then they'll base VMM-263 at Bagram or Al Asad. That's where the action is. That's where the enemy is. Otherwise, if they don't fully believe, they'll stick the "Thunderchickens" somewhere around the Horn of Africa and couch the move in terms like "emerging threat."

As I mentioned at the beginning, I'm a supporter of the program. I know many of the crews who will be leading the squadrons on the first deployments. I worked closely with VMX-22 during OPEVAL II. I would put pilots like "Mongo" Seymour up against the best Tomcat drivers I ever rode behind. In fact, I've never met a pilot, crew chief, or maintainer in the Osprey community who didn't blow me away with his or her professionalism and dedication to the mission. I want to be wrong with my prediction. But remember, I didn't bring the subject up; the Commandant of the Marine Corps did.

-- Ward

Comments

Ability to control the situation on whether the initiative has become a yardstick by. You can also buy potbs gold prove it. The game itself and its audience is not a direct rival between the tug-of-war contests, game aims to want to show the classic fencing in the occupied upper hand skills.

Posted by: potbs gold at August 5, 2008 11:26 PM


We can also maplestory.io this site to buy, cheap and safe. It was so non-stop the escalation, in order to satisfy their desire to want things, the upgrading of non-stop!


Posted by: maplestory.io at August 5, 2008 11:25 PM


rolex replica watches - $98 swiss , we don't sale replica watches.The Art of E-commerce

Posted by: replica watches at August 3, 2008 10:25 PM


rolex replica watches - $98 swiss , we don't sale replica watches.The Art of E-commerce

Posted by: replica watches at August 3, 2008 10:25 PM


nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 15, 2008 12:13 AM


So we have financial issues that preclude normal rotations and extension of those already deployed. Yet we will find the financial resources to deploy this circus sideshow jobs program where I'm sure it will still be kept well out of harm's way. Someday we'll be in a real fight. I only hope this worthless machine will be shutdown by then.

Posted by: D at April 14, 2007 12:35 AM


Buddy:

Good to see you haven't mellowed out in the last year and a half.

Thanks for the post.

Fly safe, friend.

s/f, Ward

Posted by: Ward at March 22, 2007 07:58 PM


THE C-17 HAS NEVER CRASHED OR BEEN SHOT DOWN SINCE 1993---TO INCLUDE COMBAT.

Its time we over-ride marine narcissism and MICC-TT corporate greed and stop making c'est la guerre excuses for a flying deathtrap that cannot even prevail over the forces of the earth let alone enemy humans--and cancel the V-22 and cut our multi-billion dollar and over two dozen lives lost.

Posted by: Mike Sparks at March 22, 2007 12:55 AM


I’m curious to know what question the Commandant was answering when this quote was captured. Or are we led to believe that he called you all to breakfast just to strike up a conversation and tell V22s were going to crash?
Along those lines, why haven’t any other service chiefs invited you to breakfast and announced that there won’t be any crashes of any JSF or H60s or any other aircraft in the other services?
Besides, your explanations about why Opsrey’s will crash aren’t well thought out. You do know a little about the program, but your information is old, and you obviously don’t know anything about the aircraft. ANY aircraft is going to suffer losses like you described. Anyone with actual operational experience knows that. As for your nugget comment, we’ve been training Lt’s right of flight school for over a year. There are more than a couple out there in the fleet “doing nugget things” as we blog.
Your description about HROD has a lot of conjecture and a smattering of truth in it. The V22 VRS envelope is significantly smaller than any other rotorcraft out there. To make sure everybody understands that, it means it is harder to get a V22 into VRS than a regular helicopter. Here’s what you don’t talk about in your HROD paragraph: VRS is a function of both forward airspeed and rate of descent. When the guys got the inadvertent entry you describe, they were putt-putting along setting up for the data point – they were slow to begin with, so the idea that it will “surprise” some nugget is a little far-fetched. No nugget goes hunting for datapoints on test plan designed to answer congress and not the operational user. Goodness gracious, we don’t hawk the VSI, neither do our students, and we don’t get the SINK RATE warning. I must say I thoroughly enjoyed your reply where you said to take the aircraft to a 1000 ft hover and then smoothly pull the TCL to idle! Cripes! How about you fly your F14 to 1.1 Vstall in a turn then slowly pull the stick all the way back – that would probably be just as stupid. Oh, that’s right, you didn’t have a stick in the back of an F14. But I digress, you said it would lose 500 ft in the time it takes to move the nacelles? Maybe if you’re currently in a fully developed VRS state and suffering from some kind of time-space continuum warp in the fabric of reality.
I would like to counter your predictions with one of my own: There won’t be a VRS mishap in V22s for many, many years, if ever. We all know what happened in Marana (some of us better than any investigator, if you take my meaning) and we all had a lot of beer and agreed not to do that again.
I’m curious, do you know how many times and how far V22 have flown single engine? Forget about the run-stand down in Ft Worth, I’m talking about actually flying the aircraft with only one engine? Do you know? I’ll bet credits to navy beans you don’t.
And bullets don’t bounce off of composite fuselage? Really? What assault support platform do we have that bullets do bounce off of? I’m also curious to know how the ballistics of composites fair against sheet aluminum on all the current airframes. Just assuming the ground fire is coming from the ground, will not the projectile path travel through the sponson to get into the cabin? Even with the forward velocity of the aircraft taken into account? Or are the shooters just going to aim for headshots on all the Marines in back as the V22 steaks by at 220 kts?
Now this is a little off topic, but I have to bring it up. “yeah, well it has to slow down to land”. You’re absolutely right. And let me assure these readers that no hovering machine in the world can slow down to land or accelerate out of the zone like the V22. Not even a single engine huey with the twist grip rolled off…Nothing carrying more than 5 pax anyway. Maybe a little bird could, but I don’t see the Marines turning in 1 V22 and checking out 6 MD500s…
Yes, the supply side of V22 is behind. But remember from when you worked in the program office, material support date is October of 2008…that’s what you guys programmed, I guess they just didn’t tell the PAO…Wonder why? Might have something to do with the war we’re waging at the moment.
The other “another maintenance issue” you described is going to happen. It’s also going to happen to every aircraft we build until we become omniscient with structures. Yes, the JSF and the EH101 will have structure issues because we can’t predict everything…should we call the service chiefs and invite them to breakfast? Maybe they’ll say something else!? Rest assured we’ll maintain the hydraulics with titanium tubing and 5000 psi. I’ve got some really good airframers who would like to address your challenge if you get the chance to come down to New River.
What the hell do you mean Osprey doesn’t fit on an amphib? Umm…then I must have false memories. No… I’m certain… I took a picture of it. Not just once, not just one ship, over 5 of them. I got lots of pictures. Just the same, my pictures - they’re really cool Polaroids just like Goose took of the Mig in the movie.. You know, Goose, the non-flying officer’s hero in Top Gun? Anyway, make sure you call those NAVSEA engineers and tell them you vote no confidence in their ability to the deck heating problem. I wonder what we’ve been doing when we go out to train on the ship now, since we don’t “fit” on an amphib like you said. Last question on this subject, how many days you have at sea on an amphib?
Wow, this just drags on and on, doesn’t it?
It sounds like you know all about allocation of forces, too. You know, how the MEF provides forces to the COCOMs…Are you sure you weren’t the PAO for HQMC? Bah, now I’m getting too sarcastic…You’re statements of where we put the aircraft don’t have anything to do with our belief it’s a kick ass airplane. For example, “Lets keep it simple”? Are you nuts? How about, lets think about what forces the Marine Corps needs to provide, and what METLs those forces have to be capable of in a joint theatre before we decide where to send our units. Consider that and then tell us how we should deploy the Marines and their equipment to the warfighting COs. Be sure to come back and tell us we don’t believe the Osprey will make it just because we don’t send it to MNW in Iraq.
BTW, Mongo is better than any Turkey driver you know, and didn’t expect to see his name put out there like it was some kind of endorsement for your errant points here. Neither did Jim. And Schnieder is a GySgt now, so you owe him 50 pushups for trying to demote him in your replies.
Last of all, does your current employer know you’re just a mouthpiece as PAO? Does he or she have your resume and know as soon as you get a different job you’re going to change your opinion, champion a different cause, then offer pitiful attempts to make yourself feel better by saying you “respect” all the V22 pilots and maintainers out there by quoting names that resolutely disagree with you? Go back to writing fictional books and being a mouthpiece for someone else. You don’t speak for V22, or those of us who see the long term investment objective to ensure we can out-maneuver any other fighting force in the world. The world is changing, 4th generation warfare is here, and you can decide how much you want to spend to ensure that America wins every time…and not just win while protecting themselves, but win while ensuring minimum loss of life of non-combatants by winning quickly and decisively…or you can hang our with Chris and criticize others with conjecture and a background that only impresses the uninformed, all the while referencing POM dollars like they are the lives of those who’s bled out because we couldn’t get to them in time.
In the words of naval aviation, “take it around, you’re signal is divert”.
And finally (whew!) I don’t believe the Commandant brought up, I believe you and your “amigo” did.

Posted by: Buddy at March 21, 2007 07:19 PM


This ship will play an important role in Emergency Medical Evacuations both Civil and Military, however it should not be used in any method as an attack assault aircraft asset for our folks who ride in it. People understand what happens to an aircraft with rotating wings and the centrifigal forces of tons of pressure when the slightest upset of balance is displaced. One small explosion at the prop vicinity and this aircraft will tear itself apart due to imbalance. Please keep this wonderful technology within the confines of RESCUE and not in combat.

Posted by: Timothy at March 20, 2007 01:18 PM


is this a great democracy or not?
my son worked on the v-22 at boeing wichita. he left when they combined the program at Phila.
single engine survivability was a problem ib 1987 because of the gearbox & shaft longevity BUT boeing was not FORCED to solve this problem! 20 yrs later it's it's still a problem?
I remember the av8B harrier had to have new lighter wings for increased fuel & payload b4 the corps bought it (1970).
these planes are COMPARABLE LEAPS FORWARD IN CAPABILITY!
Patience, patience, patience!
the v-22 will cause the NEXT GREAT LEAP FORWARD IN CIVIL AVIATION!

Posted by: p w prawl at March 19, 2007 10:05 PM


Please get rid of things. They are flying coffins.

Posted by: Pete Dignan at March 19, 2007 03:23 PM


Does anyone not remember the maintenance and safety stand downs of the CH46 (the Ospreys predecessor) in the 60's because the aft pylons falling off in flight? All new aircraft of a type suffer from the fact that they are new and don't have the like experiences of the sme type of aircraft to fall back on.

Posted by: Bernie at March 19, 2007 11:30 AM


The "diablog" on the Osprey is quite fascinating. Over time, the U.S. military has entertained some extremely advanced aerodynamic designs, many of which failed, either through design flaws or lack of funding. The Army's Cherokee attack chopper is a good example. This trend continues with the Osprey. Not being a pilot or aeronautical engineer, I'm not really qualified to deliver technical commentary. But as a veteran (USAF) and a taxpayer, I see the technology that the Osprey represents valuable and necessary, supply chain issues notwithstanding. Long lead time projects have always been cursed by the development of "new" military technology A short look at history tells us all that the operational art is comprised of numerous key elements, not the least of which being the tools necessary to get the job done. To my admittedly limited knowledge, there is nothing out there that can potentially delivery the capability of he Osprey. It should be noted that military technology can and must adapt to mission requirements, whether at the tactical or strategic level. The B-36 intercontinental bomber was developed to provide the capability of hitting Nazi Germany from CONUS based locations in the event that Great Britain should fall. It was NOT designed as a Cold War tool, contrary to popular belief, yet was used as such when post war circumstances changed. The ME262 jet fighter, on the other hand, was purpose built to kill strategic bombers, as was the MiG25 Foxbat. The ME262 was spectacturlary successful, but it came too late and in far to few numbers. The Osprey is, as near as I can tell, purpose built to deliver both deep strike capability and tactical flexibility. Is it survivable on the battlefield? Only time and experience will tell. Will some of them crash, perhaps catastrophically? Absolutely. Is it a high risk venture? Absolutely. Is the capability a requirement? I don't see any doubt of this. The STS (Space Transportation System, AKA the Space Shuttle) was extremely high risk, and remains so. The loss of two shuttles, was, arguably, at least as expensive as the loss of prototype Ospreys. Can we do without it? Not likely, although follow on technology is needed and being developed. The Osprey, in my view, remains high risk, yet also represents a capability without which the military cannot do with out. God bless those who have sacrificed to bring this capability to the end game, operational fielding and battle field effect.

Posted by: Kevin at March 19, 2007 07:51 AM


When the Osprey begins operational deployment why not let the pilots get a few hundred, or a thousand hours in them, before filling them with Marine grunts. None of the Marines killed on the other crash(es) needed to be on the aircraft. They were there for PR reasons ONLY. Parents can only stand so much of this kind of bullshit. Keep their kids SAFE. That's all they ask of the Corps. They know it is a dangerous business, but to risk young peoples lives for corporate PR is criminal. The officer who ordered troops to be flying on a test vehicle should be in Leavenworth. As a former Army pilot I always felt the parents of my PAX had a right to a safe aircraft and a safe pilot. Missions can be changed, altered, cancelled or delayed. Lives can't be restored after they were wasted by some commander trying to make a name for himself.

Posted by: Jeremy at March 18, 2007 09:55 AM


Ryan,

The pilots who had were in the Marana crash were form mixed backgrounds; one was an experienced 53E driver, who had just finished an exchange tour with an AFSOC 53 unit and the other was a former KC-130 driver. All that aside, the communities knowledge of VRS and how it related the V-22 was light-years behind where we are today.

Your assertion that VRS in the V-22 has something to do with rotor size is a little of base...first the V-22s rotor loading is very high due to its smaller size when compared to a helicopter of equal size/weight. The conditions that lead to VRS are no different between helicopters and the V-22; power applied to the rotor system, rates of decent in excess of 800fpm and airspeed at or below 40KIAS, all at the same time. The fact is, TESTing indicated that the V-22 has a wider performance envelope with the regard to VRS and when compared to conventional helicopter; anywhere from 875 fpm up to 1800fpm, based on weight, airspeed and altitude. Currently the VRS crew alerting system will only let you get up to 1100fpm…meaning there is a 700fpm buffer. The problem for the V-22 and its high disk loading is that once it enters VRS, VRS ramps up much faster than conventional helicopters.

The MV-22/CV-22 or any combat troop carrying platform for that matter, will never be a single pilot aircraft. AFSOC has chosen to include an FE in the CV-22 cockpit crew because of the missions the CV-22 will be performing, where as the MV-22 is still a two man cockpit, although I would be willing to bet that as the MV-22 and its mission(s) matures, the need for a third set of eyes and hands will increase.

Posted by: Jim at March 17, 2007 02:53 PM


[quote]The FACT is that the V-22 is no more at risk from VRS than any other conventional helicopter would be if it were flown outside its performance envelope.[/quote]Jim, I just don’t believe your argument is sound here – the Marine Osprey pilots who gave their lives in the previous V-22 fatal crashes were experienced rotary winged pilots who were simply trying to fly the Osprey like they did the helicopters they transitioned from, something the V-22 obviously could not do.

[quote] Equally, the tools that the V-22 has to first stay out VRS (indications, training, testing, etc) and the warning systems that exist to alert the crew to its onset, can be found on no other helicopter in the world.[/quote]That is because which has previously been stated earlier in this discussion by Nicholas Weaver, I believe the Osprey’s smaller diameter tilt-rotors pose for a unique VRS dilemma not applicable to any other traditional rotary-winged aircraft in the world.

I don't think this is a deal killer per se, just look at the F-16 in how they programmed the aircraft computer not even to allow the pilot to enter the aircraft into flight regimes it deemed catastrophic and the aircraft has carried on since then quite nicely. Also, from my brief experience in the sim I sure would like to have seen a HUD's for Osprey pilots because we all know when your coming in for a landing it's not wise to keep your eyeballs solely on the gauges; if that is why you must have two pilots and a FE on board than I would remind you that the EH/US-101 helicopter as big as it is even with three engines is FAA certified to be able to be flown by just one pilot - something the V-22 should be as well I would hope given it's otherwise outstanding flight deck.


Posted by: Ryan at March 17, 2007 02:02 PM


I forgot to add to help put it my comparison into a little better perspective in regards to the Southwest Airlines fleet is they are now the largest domestic airline in the United States and the only other US carrier who has more airplanes total is American, but even they do not have as many single aisle "domestic" aircraft as Southwest does. I know US-101’s are not cheap either but they are otherwise readily available (a la EH-101 airframe) and that is more than can be said for the V-22 fleet right now; I agree wholeheartedly about your assessment that where the Corps decides to deploy VMM-263 this year will go a long way in determining the future of the program.

I really like what the V-22 can do, but unfortunately I just don't think it’s doing all that just yet, of course I remember hearing all the bad stories about maintenance issues and hours with the Apache fleets in Gulf War 1 and I think they eventually ironed out those bugs.

With that said however I still don’t think given the financial investment in the Osprey program it would be wise canceling it in its entirety a la the US Army’s RAH-66 Comanche (which is still a far better platform than what they are gong with in the ARH-70A) but I'd just like to see a little higher return on investment than where we currently are. I'd also like to see a little more accountability on the defense contractors side for failing to meet specific goals and such - if the aircraft still has bugs in terms of maintenance and reliability than they should be held accountable, not the US taxpayer.

I think the Osprey would be wise for the Corps to procure in numbers about half as many as they are currently proposing followed by a supplement of the US-101 which the Corps will use to fly for the President for next few decades. Given the radical tilt-rotor departure from what has otherwise been two distinctive flight regimes on up until now I would think it only wise to not put your eggs all in one basket, at least from the onset.

When we were in Kosovo the Harriers were told they simply were not needed in the theatre so they went by themselves to Israel for what was otherwise to be a little training with the IAF. Turns out they had an entire maintenance stand-down on the East Coast Harrier fleet and the aircraft were inspected for about the first week and sat dormant the later three until the issue was remedied. The last thing I would want for our Corps overseas fighting the bad guys and carrying out the mission would be to have to wait a month because some unforeseen tilt-rotor issue grounded the entire medium-lift helo/tilt-rotor fleet for the Corps.

Posted by: Ryan at March 17, 2007 01:47 PM


Ward,

Thanks for the reply...let me round out my background by saying that I am USAF FE on the CV-22, but was stationed at NR for two years with VMX-22. Additionally, I average about three flights a week and have unfettered access to the simulators. Also, let me point out that I mean you no disrespect through my comments.

You are right, the rate of decent does ramp up rather quickly when power is removed from the rotor system...the same way it does/did on my previous helicopter (and others) that I flew on for eight years prior to coming to the V-22. The FACT is that the V-22 is no more at risk from VRS than any other conventional helicopter would be if it were flown outside its performance envelope. Equally, the tools that the V-22 has to first stay out VRS (indications, training, testing, etc) and the warning systems that exist to alert the crew to its onset, can be found on no other helicopter in the world.

Although you used the General's comment as the focus for your piece, and claim to be "supporter of the V-22", and despite some very savvy use of name dropping, its looked a lot like something we would see on POGO or G2mil.com. Maybe you are "a fan of the V-22 and believe in its potential". And maybe you "want the airplane to kick butt once it gets to the tip of the spear this year." But lets get a few things straight...your piece is FULL of fallacies, mistruths, and inaccuracies. Additionally, the pending deployment for the MV-22 does not mark the V-22s arrival at the tip of the spear...that won't truly happen until AFSOC sends the CV-22 into harms way at the end of this decade. Finally, you are right, the General did open up a can of worms, but he is right as well, V-22s will crash, just not for all reasons you stated. I only hope that the program is ready to deal with the sh!t storm that will ensue the first time a V-22 crashes.

Posted by: Jim at March 17, 2007 01:29 PM


I'm no expert on this matter but I have followed all that goes on with the Osprey. Don't think this aircraft is going to make it as much as I would like it to work, the reason is very simple; too many moving parts.....any can fail.

Posted by: Oby at March 17, 2007 01:06 PM


Overall, the government has spent even more on entire tilt rotor projects dating back to XV-3. It took about 50 years to get a tilt rotor (V-22)in service since XV-3. If the Osprey wasn't built, all the money spent since XV-3 and 50 years of experiments on tilt rotors may have been trashed for nothing.

Posted by: pedestrian at March 17, 2007 11:55 AM


Ryan:

Decent point. The cost of the program ultimately will be $50 billion. One should hope that buys next generation capability. We'll see . . .

Posted by: Ward at March 17, 2007 10:28 AM


I currently work for Southwest Airlines but I used to be an avionics tech on the CH-46E's back around the turn of the millennium at New River. I otherwise like the Osprey and was already for it to begin replacing our aged Phrogs back in the fall of 1999 when we came back from our Med deployment which involved ops in Kosovo. I've flown the V-22 sim and it's great, but unfortunately I don't think it works quite as well in the field as it does in the sim in terms of variables the sim does not convey such as maintenance issues and such.

But what gets me on the Osprey and what apparently no one can offer a logical rebuttal to is the cost of the program, as if it has some kind of unlimited well in which to tap (I'm sure the F-22 people would have liked to have been able to tap into that well more than a few times, too.)

We've already spent upwards of what, $12 to $15 Billion on the program over nearly two decades now? To help perhaps put that figure in a little more tangible perspective, Southwest Airlines had about 481 Boeing 737's at the end of December 2006 which included about 191 new Next Generation -700 models. The insured value of all of these aircraft you might ask? $10.83 billion.

The Corps could already have H-92 or US-101's on the ramp and in the field in Iraq for just the amount of money invested in the Osprey to this point and we still have how many billions more to go to actually buy the V-22's now that they are supposedly "ready" for production?

The Osprey may be the greatest aircraft the USCG ever fielded but for the Corps to ride into harms way at what point can you no longer financially justify the Osprey program given so many other glaring holes in the Marine Air Wing? All the more so in our current political environment where those that be want to slash the DOD's funds at every whim, at what point has the Osprey floated it's last hot check?


Posted by: Ryan at March 17, 2007 10:10 AM


Jim:

Like I said in the piece, I respect the hell out of anyone flying the Osprey currently. Guys like SSGT Mike Schneider and other crew chiefs like him at the ITT taught me plenty during my days with the program.

But I think you've missed my point. For all the mechanisms in place (including the ones you list beyond what I mentioned) the fact remains that the V-22 develops a sink rate faster than conventional rotorcraft. If you don't think that's true, talk to one of the pilots, or even better, have one of them take you to the simulators there at New River. Have him establish the airplane in a hover at say, 1,000 feet, pull the power smoothly to idle, and watch how quickly the vertical speed grows. Now imagine you're being shot at, there's a lot of chatter on the UHF and inside the airplane on the ICS. At this point, it'll take a lot of crew coordination and discipline to stay "heads down."

I'm not saying this'll happen a lot or that it's even likely. I'm saying that if we lose an Osprey in the next three years, that scenario will likely be the culprit.

To your point regarding beeping the nacelles: Even when you beep the nacelles you're going to lose at least 500 feet of altitude, depending on your vertical speed at the time you recognize you're into VRS.

It's ironic really: The logic you've posted here is the argument I helped fashion with Col. Dan Schultz, Lt. Col Kevin Gross, and Tom Macdonald. It got us out of the woods inside the Beltway. Now can the airplane succeed on deployment, year after year? The full buy of 360 MV-22s hangs in the balance as does the health and well-being of hundreds of brave Marines like yourself.

And by the way, Jamie Darcy was my hand-picked relief in 2005. We talk all the time.

Thanks for your service to our nation, Jim, and good luck with your V-22 tour. Semper Fidelis.

Posted by: Ward at March 17, 2007 08:27 AM


I'm also a fan of this V-22. The two known problems that were covered by news were the vortex ring state as mentioned, and the freezing of the engine when it flied through clouds at 18,000 feet. Regarding the freezing of the engine that caused a stall, an de-icing system was added to prevent it from freezing. Regarding the issue of VRS, Jim covers it well. The accident that caused the V-22 to crash during the test years ago was traumatic that may have caused many to concern about its reliability and vulnerability to accidents.

The tilt rotor is pretty cool, but what makes us think is where to attach weapons, which those rotors prevent weapons to be attached on the wing. There has been several proposals, such as internal UAVs that will be launched out at danger(just like video games which drones follow the path of the fighter, and shoot together), guns on the ramp, laser. There were also plans about V-22 escort. It will be convenient if there was a MH-60L DAP version of the V-22, which troops will be dropped off and the Armed V-22 provide close air support to the troops surrounding the target. If rocket and missile pods were to be attached, it seems to be forced to be attached somewhere near the front, and the gun underneath. Does anyone have any new news about what's going on about the weapons planned to be attached on V-22?

By the way, what about the BA 609? Any news about problems and improvements about the BA 609?

Posted by: pedestrian at March 17, 2007 01:01 AM


I'm a computer security person, I've given up on user training if a automated safeguard can be put in place instead. Especially given a system as complicated as a tiltrotor. I trust that the flight envelope is really mapped out, but I wouldn't trust a pilot to stay within the envelope. There is a long history of aircraft avionics which keep the pilot from doing something catastrophic.


Also, why do so many feel Vortex Ring State is such a big deal? I believe its because:

a: Smaller rotors with higher velocity I think makes VRS easier to get into (the Osprey also has greater downwash, unfortunate F=MA physics, if your rotors only cover 1/2 the area, you gotta push the air down twice as fast).

b: VRS in a single rotor or coaxial-rotor helicopter and it goes straigh down. OWCH, big ouch, but on something like a blackhawk it is designed to hopefully land hard without killing someone inside. On a twin rotor (Osprey, or a twin rotor heavy lift helecoptor), VRS causes one half to lose lift while the other half keeps lift, causing a difficult to recover from roll, so rather than going flat-down onto the ground, it goes nose-in or side-in or even up-side-down.

OTOH, the ability to power forward out of VRS is a big win, if the reaction is fast enough (before roll occurs). Is it possible to just have THAT be in the software?

Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at March 17, 2007 12:25 AM


"...one of the other features of a composite fuselage is bullets don't bounce off, they pass through like a hot knife through butter. The airplane may survive an encounter with small arms fire, but Marines flying in back might not."

CH-46 and CH-53 skin won't stop small arms either. At least it didn't 36 years ago. What is the performance penalty for armor?

mike

Posted by: mike at March 16, 2007 11:26 PM


First off, a little background on me…I actually crew the Osprey for a living and have been for almost three years…

Looks like you have been out the "loop" for a little while...among your many inaccuracies in this report you stated... "Basically, the crew has to hawk the VSI gauge constantly during a descent. A moment's inattention can result in the VSI getting out of hand". Wrong, wrong, wrong...we actually have several methods of staying out of VRS of which you only touched on two. In addition to training, and "hawking" the VVI, we also have a dynamic (based on alt, weight and airspeed) visual representation on the “Heads Down Display” as to where VRS COULD occur in addition to a "bitching Betty" squawking "SINK RATE, SINK RATE, SINK RATE" if you enter that zone.

Testing indicated that VRS in a V-22 could occur at as low as 800fpm or as high as 1800fpm. Our current software will not let you get past 1100fpm with out squawking. Something else you failed to touch on, was that the conditions that lead to VRS in the V-22 are the same ones that will lead to it in any other conventional helicopter. Additionally, no other helicopter has the measures in place, namely in the cockpit, to combat VRS onset as the V-22 does. Finally, you overlooked the fact that the V-22 does not have to trade altitude for airspeed in order to exit VRS, as all conventional helicopters do. In fact the procedure for exiting VRS in a V-22 is to "beep" the nacelles for 2 seconds or 15 degrees, all while increasing speed, keeping the nose on the horizon and not giving up any altitude for the sake of gaining airspeed to exit VRS.

Looks to me like you need to do your due diligence or better yet just call up Jamie Darcy (NAVAIR PAO), and he will help you out.

Posted by: JIm at March 16, 2007 10:24 PM


Hey, Mitch:

The IDS failed because fire melted it (it's composite). They modified the housing as a result. Some single engine testing was done during DT but it wasn't exceptionally robust. As an aviator, I'm not sure how much confidence I'd have flying around single engine for very long.

Posted by: Ward at March 16, 2007 03:23 PM


You state: "The one true test of the interconnect drive shaft was very early in the program's history. The mechanism failed grossly."
Yikes! How weak is the drive shaft? Didn't they do testing with one engine out? Am I correct to assume the V22 can fly and land with one engine and one prop turning (no drive to other prop) in horizontal mode?
I do hope your prediction proves to be too pessimistic...

Posted by: Mitch S at March 16, 2007 02:41 PM


Nicholas,

Since the flight control system is digital, limits can be designed in as you suggest, however that would be a major redesign, which takes time and money. It might take a mishap or two to make it a priority. There is precedent for that sort of sequence with earlier airplanes including the Tomcat. We had to lose a bunch due to irrecoverable flat spins before we designed and incorporated digital flight controls. Right now the fleet views VRS avoidance as a training issue.

Posted by: Ward at March 16, 2007 01:11 PM


Stupid question: Given the detailed map of the VRS envelope, and that so many envelope problems on aircraft these days are computer controlled (the computer doesn't let the pilot exceed the flight envelope), is there software to prevent a pilot from going past the safe limits on VRS (perhaps with an override switch?)

Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at March 16, 2007 12:26 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.