CV-22 Osprey info

[Tex]

Anybody out there know what the current story on the Osprey is?I know they are back in testing, saw one flying around Edwards two days ago, but what is their proposed IOC date? If you have got any info I would appreciate it.

[ClearedHot]

Back flying, more problems....surprise. I have heard the aero/flight control engineers are extremely confident they have solved the vortex ring state problem. Many problems/issues remain;

1. Severe brownout problem, up to three times the downwash of current rotary wing systems.

2. Fastrope operations restricted due to downwash problems.

3. Can't hold most current SOF team vehicles.

4. Can't hold SOF team boats.

5. SOF is having problems with avionics because the USMC is controlling the development and they see much of the USAF gear as gold plating.

6. Can't pressurize...although supporters say it would have made a huge difference during Operation Anaconda.

7. No weapons....another stink-bomb waiting to happen. Will they add aerial gunners like current rotary wing assets or go with a pilot controlled chin gun.

Still very political...stay away.

[backseatdriver]

So basically it sucks and we need to scrap it and use the money elsewhere.

[Guest egghead]

Like re-engining the Hog.

[Guest rotorhead]

Regardless of the pitfalls and problems, you can bet the farm that AFSOC will get the V-22. They have devoted a HUGE percentage of their budget on it. AFSOC has always been a niche market...they have always had the "special capability"...their MH-60s and MH-53s had more nav gear than virtually any other aircraft, and had air refueling capability and firepower that other helos did not have. The Army (160 SOAR) got jazzed up MH-60s with the same (and more) bells and whistles...AFSOC then let theirs go (hmmm...money for V-22???). The MH-53 retained its role with TF/TA radar and more lift. Then the Army (160 SOAR) got MH-47s with similar equipment. AFSOC has crashed all but approx 30 MH-53s (one was shot down last week). To keep a niche no one else has, V-22 fits nicely (whether it works or not). Whether it makes sense or not, bet also they put at least one gun on it.

[Guest AirGuardian]

The biggest player in this whole mess was the Marines who intended to order a few hundred of these things. AFSOC was planning initially for around 50 or so, but they have their own separate M11 money anyway so no one touch'm. Let the cards fall where they may, this program has been going on for years and years. Either finish it, or send it to the desert. They are quite impressive up close while they psuedo hover around if I may...

[flynhigh]

I would have to say the V-22 is very impressive to see up close, either just sitting or hovering or whatever! A buddy of mine is a flight test engineer out at Pax River and I would say you'll see it up and running in the near future.

[Guest HueyPilot]

The V-22 is a pretty maligned aircraft, as is often the case when people don't understand what it is and won't portray the aircraft in context.

The VRS problem with the V-22 is a problem that plagues all rotor-borne aircraft. Helicopter pilots are taught from day one to avoid the conditions that will develop the onset of VRS (or settling with power as some call it). It's sort of like avoiding conditions that will result in a stall in a fixed-wing aircraft.

The pilots of the Marana bird that packed it in a few years back were both ex-fixed wing pilots and they didn't fully understand the dangers of VRS, or how to recover from it. Additionally, the VRS envelope hadn't been fully explored and it wasn't adequately explained to new pilots in V-22 training.

The "fix" to the VRS problem was essentially doing a thorough flight test evaluation that determined the entire VRS envelope and recovery data.

Probably the most profound "fix" for the V-22 wasn't aerodynamic, but mechanical. The engineers managed to greatly simplify the hydraulic system relating to the nacelle system, vastly reducing the chances of hydraulic failure that resulted in an early V-22 crash.

The last V-22 to crash also suffered a hydraulic problem, but it was determined that the aircraft could have made it back but the crew's unfamiliarity with the aircraft resulted in it's loss.

As with any new aircraft, operational experience will lead to greater understanding of the problems associated with tilt-rotor ops and lead to improved designs and techniques at first on the V-22, and then incorporated into future tilt-rotor designs.

All the naysayer crap I see reminds me of the same doubts when jets, helicopters and other "new" forms of aircraft appeared on the scene. Early on, critics of the jets felt that the aircraft was useless because early jet engines ate so much fuel making the range so short it wasn't very good for combat.

Critics felt the helicopter was too complicated, too under-powered, and would provide little use to combat operations. Early helicopters were often regarded as merely novelties.

And lets not forget that even early airplanes in the first decade of the 1900s were also regarded as novelties...maybe they could have some use for battlefield recon, but little else.

How the critics were so wrong....

The V-22 will mature, if it's given the chance. Send it to the battlefield, and that additional experience will result in the V-22B, V-22C and so on, gradually improving the design. Services will also develop tilt-rotor specific techniques for using the V-22 in battle, independent of procedures used by airplanes or helicopters. And eventually, the V-22 will yield to a V-23 which will incorporate all those things the V-22 didn't have due to technology limits.

The V-22 I believe will become an important part of future battlefield maneuver capability, and we can't afford to be short-sighted and let this program die.

[El Duderino]

I can't speak to specific problems the V-22 may have with hydraulics or VRS, but I have to disagree with the argument that there is not enough experience with this type of aircraft and that we need to let the technology mature.

The concept of the tilt-rotor aircraft is almost 50 years old. The Bell XV-3 first flew in 1955 http://avia.russian.ee/vertigo/bell_xv-3-r.html, the CL-84 in the late 50's http://www.exn.ca/FlightDeck/Aircraft/Milestones/cl84.cfm and the XV-15 was flying by 1980 http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/XV-...EC80-13848.html. The first flight of the V-22 was in March of 1989. That is a rather large body of experience. I don't think it is short-sighted to reevaluate a program that has been around for 15 years and is still questionable in safety.

The capabilities that the V-22 would bring to the battlefield are definately something that we could use. I think it would be wise to explore other possibilities to bring these capabilities to bear instead of feeding this program money and lives. You've got to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. Just my 2 cents. Back to studying Western Civ.

[ 26. April 2004, 04:23: Message edited by: El Duderino ]

[Guest HueyPilot]

All of those other aircraft were limited research vehicles, and none of them were ever used operationally.

Flying an aircraft in a structured, controlled test environment is much different than flying the same aircraft in combat, and an environment which changes.

None of those aircraft were ever used to carry cargo, airdrop supplies, fire weaponry or do anything else practical, either. Every last one of them had one purpose: to prove the aerodynamic feasibility of the tilt-rotor concept.

The V-22 is safe. The first couple accidents occurred while the V-22 was still painted in test schemes and it was still in the initial flight test phase. I find it ridiculous that anyone could point to these mishaps and say "see, the V-22 doesn't work". Many aircraft we currently have in service today had serious accidents while in the initial test phases. Yet those programs survived.

The last two accidents were not the result of V-22 flaws, but were instead attributed to crew error and insufficient training and operational oversight. The Marana crash was entirely due to poor crew training. The New River crash initially was an inflight emergency that the crew should have been able to easily recover from, but poor decision making and training (again) led to that aircraft's loss.

There have been four V-22 accidents. The first two were in early test flight phases. The last two were in the OT&E phase in the early 2000s.

I personally know a guy who's flown the XV-15, which is essentially a smaller version of the V-22. It's easy to fly, easy to manage, and has outstanding flying qualities, even with an engine failed. It'll even do a hovering autorotation in the unlikely event both engines shutdown in a hover. If they shutdown while in flight, it's a glider.

Issues like how to fast-rope from from the aircraft exist. However, the complaint from reply #2 doesn't fully explain the situation. The problem is the SOF guys can't fast-rope from the V-22 like they can from a helicopter. So, they will have to develop new tilt-rotor specific procedures.

I'm all for cutting out pork and "stupid" programs. But the V-22 is not one of them. Not to start a war over programs, but I find it crazy that some folks are out there saying "kill the V-22!", while fighting to save the F-22.

Granted, the day when the F-15 will become obsolete is coming. But right now, there isn't much demand for the F-15C mission. And because of this reason they renamed the F-22 the F/A-22. Many program folks realized that an air superiority-only fighter couldn't make it in today's political environment.

However, while some of you scramble about defending the F/A-22 (I'll admit, we might need it one day, so I'm not advocating we kill that program), you want to kill a program that supports SOF and Marine troops, who ARE presently engaged in combat operations in multiple theaters around the world.

Some of you belly ache about F-15 pilots having to fly 15 or 20 year old airplanes, but see no problem with Marines and AFSOC folks flying around in 40 and 50 year old helicopters.

And who's taking the beating now in both OIF and OEF? The helos...it's their slow speed that makes them so vulnerable. As a former helo pilot, I think it would by mighty nice in today's low-intensity battlefield (where the bad guys mostly have small arms, light AAA and the odd SA-7) to be able to climb high quickly and accelerate to well over 200 KIAS, instead of running the gauntlet at low level and 150 KIAS.

There are a few reasons why the V-22 program appears to be a failed program:

1. Political fighting. Each program has its supporters, and the V-22 has always been viewed by the DC politicians as a novelty that wasn't really needed. Cheney tried to kill it in the late 1980s, right when the program was getting started. This one event was the most influential in disrupting the program, because since then, the money has been sporadic at best, and Bell has had to do alot of in-house funding to keep the program alive.

2. Management by the USMC. The jarheads, bless 'em all, are flying in old rusty CH-46 Phrogs that were built when Eisenhower was president. They more than anyone wanted a machine that would take them to the beach quickly, and when the word came in late 1990s that the V-22 would enter LRIP (Low-Rate Initial Production), they hastily set up a training program and an initial cadre unit without fully thinking this through. This, more than any "safety" issue, caused the last two accidents which the media used to present the V-22 as a flying deathtrap.

The V-22 is less complicated than the H-53 (of which many of those helicopters were lost due to system failures over the years), and the Vortex Ring State (VRS) problem was no more of an issue for the V-22 than any helicopter (or any airplane, regarding stalls, for that matter). Yet the V-22 was presented across the media as an overcomplicated aircraft that would simply fall from the sky. Hence why many of you not familiar with the aircraft (or helicopters) feel so biased against the V-22 to this day.

Curiously, many young Marines were lost trying to learn to fly the AV-8 Harrier. The early AV-8A and AV-8C was a complicated, underpowered and difficult to fly jet, with short range and a small payload.

Then along came the AV-8B, a new improved version, with more docile flying stability, greater range and a real useable payload.

Next will be the F-35B, which will be the third generation VSTOL attack jet. I can only try to use the AV-8/JSF example to demonstrate the parallels with the V-22. One great difference though...the V-22 is actually pretty easy to fly, vice the AV-8A.

3. A New Paradigm. The V-22 is not an airplane. It's not a helicopter. You can't fly it with an airplane mindset, and you can't fly it with a helicopter mindset. It's so radically different, the FAA created an entire new category for airman certifications...Powered Lift (the government's overdone term for Tilt Rotor).

SOF equipment and tactics are designed to work with airplanes and helicopters, so it's not too strange to me that those things won't be as easily used with tilt-rotors. SOF folks will develop tilt-rotor specific tactics and equipment, and indeed they are probably already doing this.

The lack of tilt-rotor specific procedures and tactics results in a perception that the aircraft simply "doesn't work". Well, you can't drop airborne troops from a helicopter like you can from a C-130, and the same is true regarding tilt-rotors. This is where operational experience comes into play. An example of this is the C-130J. If you haven't noticed, not a single US C-130J participated in OIF or OEF. That's because the USAF received the J without any real operational evaluation period. No one knew how to do airdrops with a crew of three and a flight deck full of MFDs instead of SCNS and round steam gauges.

Some folks took the ommission of the J in combat as a sign that it wasn't a good aircraft, but they are pretty wrong and short-sighted in that regard. The J is a great aircraft, but J-specific procedures have had to be ironed out. I think you'll see the J in an AOR in the next few years.

Anyway, I'll step down from my soapbox for a while. Sorry bout the lengthy posting, I'm just tired of the uninformed making judgements about things they know little about.

[ClearedHot]

All the naysayer crap I see reminds me of the same doubts when jets, helicopters and other "new" forms of aircraft appeared on the scene.

You missed the point, I said the V-22 is the wrong aircraft for SOF, not the tilt rotor concept.

How the critics were so wrong....

The V-22 will mature, if it's given the chance. Send it to the battlefield, and that additional experience will result in the V-22B, V-22C and so on, gradually improving the design. Services will also develop tilt-rotor specific techniques for using the V-22 in battle, independent of procedures used by airplanes or helicopters. And eventually, the V-22 will yield to a V-23 which will incorporate all those things the V-22 didn't have due to technology limits.

How many good people have to die in the process of developing a V-23. That approach might have made sense in WW II, but it is absolutely absurd to take that approach in 2004.

However, while some of you scramble about defending the F/A-22 (I'll admit, we might need it one day, so I'm not advocating we kill that program), you want to kill a program that supports SOF and Marine troops, who ARE presently engaged in combat operations in multiple theaters around the world.

We "might" need it someday? Does your C-21 squadron have access to 3-1, if so you might want to take a look.

Issues like how to fast-rope from the aircraft exist. However, the complaint from reply #2 doesn't fully explain the situation. The problem is the SOF guys can't fast-rope from the V-22 like they can from a helicopter. So, they will have to develop new tilt-rotor specific procedures.

I am always in favor of thinking outside the container and trying new things. In fact, I spent three years at the WIC encouraging the SOF community to do just that. However, when one service brings a new system that makes all of the other services change their tactics, training, and equipment, then maybe it is not the answer. It is not just fast rope that everyone will have to change. Most of the current SOF equipment does not fit inside.

Anyway, I'll step down from my soapbox for a while. Sorry bout the lengthy posting, I'm just tired of the uninformed making judgements about things they know little about.

I tell you what. I am at maxwell too, I'll meet you at the club Friday afternoon and I'll put my 7+ years in AFSOC against your time in little white jets any day and we will see who is uniformed.

[Guest HueyPilot]

Hey, I've got more time in just "little white jets". I flew for an assault helicopter battalion as well as a medical evac company in the Army for several years.

I'm clicking past 8 years as a military pilot having both FW and RW time, so it's interesting that you're pitching me as a newbie who doesn't have a clue.

I've also got an old friend with over 15,000 hours flying helicopters and numerous combat hours in Vietnam who flew the XV-15 and said it was amazing. You've got your opinions, and so have I. But my opinions aren't based on bullshit.

How many good people have to die in the process of developing a V-23. That approach might have made sense in WW II, but it is absolutely absurd to take that approach in 2004.

As I said before, the first two V-22 crashes occurred very early in the test program. Hell, we lost a B-1 in it's test program, and a couple F-117s, yet those aircraft are now star performers.

The last two were human error. The Marana crash again was due to faulty crew training, and the New River crash was a hydraulic failure that the USMC new about but didn't correct prior to flight. Specifically, in the last aircraft, the lines were chafing, the program folks at New River new about it, but didn't do anything to correct it.

Something similar happened to the F-16 early in its days...but with the fly-by-wire system, and we lost one due to chafing. Yet no one is questioning the F-16s contributions to our Air Force.

As for "losing good people", the only non-test military personnel lost in the V-22 program were lost to our own bungling of the aircraft, not severe design problems or inadequacies. After Bell-Boeing found out about the chafing problem, a simple fix was engineered and there haven't been any more occurances of this problem.

Getting the V-22 in service could result in other designs, as I mentioned above. You took the stance that if we moved on with a new design, we'd kill lots of folks doing so. We lost folks designing a new category of aircraft with the V-22, but operational experience and the lessons learned from the first tilt-rotors would probably mitigate any severe dangers in devloping a new design.

However, when one service brings a new system that makes all of the other services change their tactics, training, and equipment, then maybe it is not the answer

We'll never know what the answer is if we kill the V-22. Maybe there is a niche role within the SOF community that the V-22 could perform very well. If nothing else, the V-22 would make an excellent CSAR platform. Above all, though, the V-22 is needed in other roles. I would have loved the idea of flying a V-22 in the assault role versus slower conventional helicopters.

Anyhow, thanks for the comment about my time in "little white jets"...that's real cool. I guess I'm supposed to feel awed by your experience in other aircraft, as opposed to my paltry couple thousand hours flying old Army helos and (gasp!) Learjets.

You know, that trick might work if I were some newbie LT copilot who only knew the inside of a T-1 and a C-21, but I'm not.

[ClearedHot]

Getting the V-22 in service could result in other designs, as I mentioned above. You took the stance that if we moved on with a new design, we'd kill lots of folks doing so. We lost folks designing a new category of aircraft with the V-22, but operational experience and the lessons learned from the first tilt-rotors would probably mitigate any severe dangers in devloping a new design.

So lets throw a bad aircraft into combat to validate your hunch...brilliant.

I flew for an assault helicopter battalion as well as a medical evac company in the Army for several years. I'm clicking past 8 years as a military pilot having both FW and RW time, so it's interesting that you're pitching me as a newbie who doesn't have a clue.

And yet not one bit of time in SOF, but you want to tell me what is the best aircraft to use based on comments from a friend who flew the test bird. I don't care how much time you have in Dust-off and Lear jets, when it comes to SOF, you have no clue. I am clicking past 14 years as a military pilot with a few thousand hours of my own, and most of it in SOF, and I do understand the mission. I find it absolutely fascinating when someone with ZERO experience in the community wants to tell us what is best.

You might not be a Lt Co-pilot but you sure act like one.

[Guest HueyPilot]

How 'bout we agree to disagree? I always shake my head at folks who get into pissing contests, and this is exactly that. You're not a helo guy, I'm not a SOF guy. You don't like the V-22, I think it's got potential. You wanna call me immature, but it was you who insulted my background in the first place.

All I ever did was say I feel the V-22 is worth developing, and I feel the bad press the V-22 gets is mostly hyped up. I never said anything about YOU personally. I'm sure you've got plenty of experience flying gunships supporting the RW SOF assets. What I had a tough time with was you telling me that my opinion was worthless because I was just a "little white jet pilot". 8 years of flying for the military apparently doesn't allow me an educated opinion on the subject.

And I did more than just fly dustoff. I spent most of my time in an assault battalion, flying in formation below the tree line, wearing nogs, and plopping my helicopter into the middle of a confined landing zone barely wide enough for the rotor disc to fit in. That was before 9/11, so excuse me if I didn't do that in actual combat conditions. But I'm very familiar with tactical operations, and having to learn threats and so on.

But back to a cease-fire...sir, I'm NOT implying that I know more than you do regarding SOF. But I know tactical helicopters quite well. And I'm not the one flinging insults around either. So, let's agree to disagree and be adults about it.

[ClearedHot]

You wanna call me immature, but it was you who insulted my background in the first place.

Anyway, I'll step down from my soapbox for a while. Sorry bout the lengthy posting, I'm just tired of the uninformed making judgements about things they know little about.

I am all for a cease fire, but before you tell me to act like an adult you might want to go back to the top and read the posts...for the record you rolled in on me first...

Per the ROE, I rolled in out of self defense.

My comments on the CV-22 are based on the last few years working with guys who have flown it. As well as sitting on tactics review boards, where the facts showed the airframe comes up short. I worked in an office with four PAVELOW pilots in the community, all had flown the sim and while they were impressed, not one thought it was the answer. The community is very torn, with many feeling like this thing is being forced down their throats (STS). Sometimes change is good and my initial opinion was that the Osprey was going to be a good thing for SOF. Three years later and I have come to realize it is not.

Ultimately, barring another crash, the USMC and SOF will get the Osprey and no doubt the great military folks that are out there will find a way to make it work. I just hope we don't lose too many of them in the process.

[Guest HueyPilot]

Cleared:

The quote that said I was tired of folks making uniformed remarks about the V-22 was aimed primarily at guys who are not even vaguely familiar with the aircraft. If you were to ask anyone in my unit what they think about it, they'd respond that it's a flying deathtrap and they must be going down in droves.

I had no intention of inferring that you were equally clueless.

For the record, here's my view on the V-22, all arguing aside:

I think the V-22 is as aerodynamically and systems-wise safe as pretty much anything else out there. Sufficient training and oversight will keep the aircraft safe.

I have always disagreed with AFSOC's plan to replace the Pave Low one-for-one with the CV-22. It boggles my mind why they would want to completely replace the tried and true with something that is still operationally untried. Granted, the Pave Low's are old, but they have certain capabilities that neither the T2s or the CV-22 can do.

I do, however, believe that the CV-22 could mature into a great CSAR platform, and perhaps after fielding it and getting an idea of what it can and can't do operationally, they can find other uses for it as well.

And for what the V-22 was intended, it will perform that mission well. As an assault helo driver, you just accept the fact that some of your formation will get picked off on the approach to the LZ, and some of you will get picked off on the way out too. That and you really can't stage a real helo assault much more than 100 NM from the FEBA, unless you like refueling on the other side of the line. The V-22 allows a fast ingress and egress, and improves the range you can reach without having to refuel inflight.

About my dad, he's a retired Cobra pilot, he'd rather just roll in with some rocket fire! Just kidding.

[ClearedHot]

Huey,

"Context matters", you mentioned the clueless and referenced my post (#2) specifically so I assumed you were rolling in. Either way no hard feelings, I am glad people are debating the issue, because there are many unaswered questions.

I have a very unique vantage point of the CV-22 program from my last job. While I don't think it is the answer for AFSOC, they have waited so long there is almost no other choice. The PAVELOW is one of the most capable systems in the world, but they are very tired and in need of another SLEP if they are going to remain viable.

There is a certain faction that would rather see AFSOC get the 53E from the Marines and retro-fit the PAVE equipment to give AFSOC a three engine helo that can takeoff at 100,000lbs.

I agree about the CSAR capability. We need something that can dash across the FEBA at relative high speed and retrieve downed crews.

About my Dad, he's a retired F-4 / F-15 Pilot, he'd rather just roll in with a MK-82.

Cheers

[Tex]

Wow, did not quite expect this many replies. Thanks, but to possibly add to the furry, what is happening with the training unit that the AF stood up, I believe at Luke? Are we still training the intial cadre or has that been put on hold?

[Combat Platypus]

Don't know about a training squadron anywhere else, but I imagine it'd be at Kirtland AFB, NM if there was one. I can say for sure there is not a V-22 on the flight line at Kirtland, but there is a sim waiting to train people and at least 2 contract sim instructors ready to teach.

[ 29. April 2004, 00:48: Message edited by: Shadow05 ]

[Guest AirGuardian]

Hueypilot stated:

"An example of this is the C-130J. If you haven't noticed, not a single US C-130J participated in OIF or OEF. That's because the USAF received the J without any real operational evaluation period. No one knew how to do airdrops with a crew of three and a flight deck full of MFDs instead of SCNS and round steam gauges.

Some folks took the ommission of the J in combat as a sign that it wasn't a good aircraft, but they are pretty wrong and short-sighted in that regard. The J is a great aircraft, but J-specific procedures have had to be ironed out. I think you'll see the J in an AOR in the next few years."

Unless you can find a current Active Duty AF unit operationally flying the "J" model, name that unit? Just recalling that the AF didn't want it, Special Ops didn't want it, Hurricane Hunters have it, Guard had it forced down their throat so we have a few units plusing up (VERY FEW), operationally young units in the system now. You're right, they'll play eventually. Not because they couldn't do airdrop - not all C-130s had a dedicated airdrop mission in the AOR. They could've called the "J" in, but it's a Guard asset! Kind of political if you think how it will operate as a better product vs current equipment, especially as part of the Reserve Component. If they really needed some tails to fly some missions without airdrop requirements, we have plenty of other units as well itching to prove themselves to receive the "J" model. More angles to this research product than meets the eye for most, and I've just scratched the surface. Osprey is a totally different ball game! OK, they have things that spin...

Just clarifying why "J's" weren't called up for OEF/OIF...

[zrooster99]

I think I can give one reason as to why AFSOC wants to replace the "operationally tried and true with something untried". The MH-53M is rapidly becoming unsupportable (can't get parts, corrosion, sheetmetal cracking, no two aircraft wired the same..etc) and NEEDS to be replaced with SOMETHING. CH-53Es, MH-47s, CV-22s...doesn't matter really, but a replacement is needed fairly soon. I can go into specifics if anyone's interested. That's the MX perspective anyway. Or, we could just give the mission to the Army completely...

[Guest BBC]

My $.02 for what it's worth.

Disclaimer: I have been a Navy NFO in the E-2 Command and Control community. I have very little SOF experience and no Helo experience.

That said, I think Huey has a point. The V-22 is a new beast. It is not just a new Helo airframe, it is a new type of aircraft altogether. TTP that worked well for Helos may need to be changed to fit Tilt Rotors. There are growing pains in any new system. Just because they don't work exactly like the old is no reason to discard them.

For example, the E-2 is in the process of getting a new parachute/ALSS system. The current chute has never been jumped successfully, it is gives you a descent rate slightly below that of your plummeting airplane, and as for the raft, well let’s just say it is refered to as the “Shark Taco” by aircrew. The new parachute will have a MUCH slower descent rate, 4-line release (another helpful feature missing from the current chute) and include the same great raft the F-18 uses. For all this, there was huge resistance to the new PSE (as it is called) when it was released that the min bailout altitude would be increased 500 feet, to 1000 agl. For all the new capabilities the PSE brought to the table, it was regarded as fatally flawed because of 500 feet. Yes, 500 feet in a bailout CAN make a huge difference, BUT so can having a chute that actually will land you safely. Folks focused on one number, and didn’t see the whole picture.

That having been said, a similar situation is developing with the V-22. The current SOF helos are aging and being placed under MUCH stress with current optempos. They are capable aircraft, but like any helo, they are slow. The V-22 may not be able to carry all the current gear and TTPs like fastroping may need to be refined for the aircraft, but look at the new capabilities they bring to the table. They have a much increased speed and range, and therefore survivability. I admit to not being smart enough on SOF or the V-22 to generate much of a laundry list, but my point is this, look at the big picture. The old way of doing things may need to be changed, but do the new capabilities outweigh the growing pains?

[Wing Sweep]

Any of you IPs heard of when they will open up the Osprey pipeline for Air Force guys?

[ClearedHot]

Originally posted by gabe2surf:

Any of you IPs heard of when they will open up the Osprey pipeline for Air Force guys?

The first CV-22 Squadron will stand-up at Kirtland this summer, no idea when they will start flowing students. If I had to venture a complete "Guess", I would assume student production would start sometime summer 06.

[ 21. February 2005, 20:31: Message edited by: Clearedhot ]

[Champ Kind]

Out of what airframes do you think they would be more likely to get CV-22 pilots? Herks? Helos? Doesn't really matter a whole hell of a lot....?