CV-22 Osprey info

[Guest WildBill]

Just a quick thought, the Marine Corps' whole "Sea Basing" idea with troops and the new AAV launching attacks from well beyond the horizon....using the horizon....as a type of cover, wouldn't having something able to fly high enough to need pressurization defeat the point?<----damn that logic.

[craino21]

Safe & Clear- I'm guessing that you misunderstood the axis I was saying the wing moved in... this picture show's what I'm talking about, the wing does in fact swivel 90 degrees.

[M2]

Interesting blurb I found on AFSOC's web site...

The AFSOC CV-22 Osprey

Air Force Special Operations Command's 18th Flight Test Squadron will begin operationally testing the CV-22 in 2006 and AFSOC expects to begin using the Osprey in 2007. The CV-22 will replace up to 89 aircraft currently in AFSOC's inventory. Its unique capabilities integrates those of both fixed and rotor wing aircraft. Its the best of both worlds.

CV-22 can take off and land like a helicopter and fly like a turboprop airplane. AFSOC -- which has headquarters at Hurlburt Field, Fla. -- is confident in the belief that the CV-22 will enable the command to do what it can't do now. Conduct long-range, high-speed, vertical lift missions in an aircraft capable of getting troops into and out of an area in one night. Almost futuristic in its design, the CV-22 looks like a helicopter on the ground with two sets of propeller rotors on each wing tip. Once airborne, the rotors tilt forward so the aircraft resembles a dragon fly with turboprops.

• CV-22 is a new capability that will revolutionize the special operations force mission

• CV-22 will enable U.S. Special Operations Command to conduct long-range infiltration and exfiltration missions in single period of darkness

• Air Force Special Operations Command moves into the future with CV-22--special operators will be able to get farther and faster with a vertical lift capability

• The CV-22’s extended range, speed and versatility greatly enhances the efficiency of the warfighter

• CV-22 will give theater commanders a versatile aircraft in place quickly--on time every time

• CV-22 state-of-the-art avionics will allow pinpoint delivery accuracy and decreased detection of special operation mission assets

• CV-22 can perform missions that normally required both fixed and rotor wing aircraft

CV-22 HIGHLIGHTS:

• Advanced aviation radar and a robust electronic warfare suite is used to successfully penetrate hostile areas

• CV-22 will have 4 crew members aboard enabling a high task, an increased workload environment for special operations missions

• The CV-22 is a new capability; it was designed to perform some of the mission of the C-130 and MH-53. It was not designed to replicate all their missions

• CV-22 provides the speed, range and vertical lift capability required for special operations that no other aircraft in the world possesses

• CV-22 is self-deployable – helicopters are not

• CV-22 is shipboard compatible, which increase mission flexibility and decreases operational signature

I also found the following at this site...

The US Air Force intends to replace both the MH-60 Pavehawk and MH-53J/M Pave low with the CV-22 Special operations varient. With a cruising speed of around 230kts, the Osprey is almost twice as fast as the MH-53J with over three times the range without refueling.

Of course that last paragraph is not an official source. I was just trying to find where it said that in official writing...

Cheers! M2

[M2]

Here's another pic in the folded configuration, from a different angle...

Cheers! M2

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Originally posted by WildBill:

Just a quick thought, the Marine Corps' whole "Sea Basing" idea with troops and the new AAV launching attacks from well beyond the horizon....using the horizon....as a type of cover, wouldn't having something able to fly high enough to need pressurization defeat the point?<----damn that logic.

Uh, no.

Just because it CAN fly above 10K doesn't mean it HAS to fly above 10K all the time.

The problem is, the CV-22 will have to fly in the heart of the envelope of every single threat on the planet when half the threats (at least) can be mitigated by simply getting above 20K.

That is tactically retarded.

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Originally posted by BuddhaSixFour:

The pressurization argument is silly. Why would you pressurize it?

You pressurize it so you can fly above 10K.

Originally posted by BuddhaSixFour:

Even if you have to hop up to 14k to cross mountains or the like, that isn't anything that's going to cause meaningful hypoxia in anyone who's in shape.

True, however that is a moot point in the big picture when designing overall capabilities to meet potential needs.

There are many scenarios where you would want to be above 10K for an extended period. Crossing over a mountain pass is not one of them.

Originally posted by BuddhaSixFour:

Do you really think a SOF team is going to be all hypoxic by the time they get back down to their undoubtedly lower LZ?

Nope. Again, moot.

Originally posted by BuddhaSixFour:

Save the weight, especially in an aircraft that has to hover.

Good point. However, this is the very reason they will not be able to arm the thing appropriately.

Originally posted by BuddhaSixFour:

For the flying high to avoid threats, again, silly argument.

This may be the most tactically naive statement I've heard in a long time. Maybe ever.

I'm not sure what is shaping this perspective.

You need to have an open mind when it comes to tactics, especially when you are setting threshold requirements for a new aircraft design.

There are too many people in the AFSOC community who believe low altitude tactics are the only legitimate tactics. I am not sure why you would want to limit your thinking to such a narrow band of options.

I would've hoped having a weapons school division would've opened people's minds a bit more than that by now. I remember listening to Jumper after Kosovo say "AFSOC needs to learn what the AF part of their name means." I guess we have not been successful on the institutionalmindset shift yet. I know that is one reason there are no AFSOC A-10 squadrons yet...ACC and the Air Staff are not convinced AFSOC can be flexible enough to use them properly so they resist any and all initiatives.

Big pic, teamwork and integration is good...'nuff said.

Originally posted by BuddhaSixFour:

Part of the SOF mission is to be undetected. You can't do that at 20K feet, even if it is harder to shoot you when they inevitable see your giant blade disk on radar.

There are threat environments where you cannot go low enough in the Osprey if the enemy has a full up IADS.

Luckily, we don't intend to face those kinds of threats or systems with that aircraft.

There are many ways to defeat radars. 'Nuff said.

There are many ways for a team to arrive at their destination undetected. 'Nuff said.

The size of the radar return is irrelevant.

If you are out of range it is not just harder for the enemy to shoot you, it is impossible.

Originally posted by BuddhaSixFour:

That might be a valid strategy in Iraq right now where the threat is RPGs, but 2k feet is enough to take care of that one.

Remaining above the threat is not a stategy, it is a tactic. It is a valid tactic in 90% of the places the aircraft will ever fly.

Originally posted by BuddhaSixFour:

Remember, that's not the scenario SOF is designed for.

Not sure who you are talking about when you use the term "SOF."

There are many scenarios. The aircraft to support SOF should be able to adapt to as many of them as possible. SOF thinking is often narrow. It is our job to present the teams with options and convince them of the validity of different tactics. We cannot present them with options if we have none becasue our aircraft were designed with bilt in LIMFACs based on our own narrow minded thinking. That is a foul.

Originally posted by BuddhaSixFour:

I think in 10 years is going to prove to be one hell of a capable aircraft.

Let's hope so.

That doesn't mitigate the fact that there are many tactical flaws and LIMFACs in the current design. We need to identify the LIMFACs if we want to get better. The last thing we should do is ignore them or otherwise explain them away.

[Guest pcoandgo]

The Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) that the Government included in the contract for the aircraft do not include pressurization capability. The gun system was also not included.

Now, I do think that the R&D period for the V-22 has been very long, but unless you have worked around it, you have no idea how revolutionary that technology is. I think it has come such a long way, and will still go further. Weight is a huge issue for it, however. If that can be mitigated somehow (additional rotor blades present maintenance problems, and the rotor arc is as big as it can be) then I'm sure weight won't be as big a deal.

The bottom line is that the Government is getting what the Government required in the contract. Could it have been done better? Certainly. Can the system of contract development and awarding be improved? Yes. Will it? I doubt it.

[LRU-6.9]

If I’m not mistaken you can fly above 10k un-pressurized, ask the H-model gunship guys, they do it all the time since they can’t pressurize. Fighter guys, correct me if I’m wrong, don’t you fly partially pressurized? As for jumpers, I believe they can go to 13-14 without supplemental oxygen, I’ll look up the exact numbers if needed. I’m not defending the CV-22, just want to make sure we are all on the same page since there is a lot of discussion about the pressurization issue.

But it seems the Air Force/AFSOC have been completely bassakward in getting the CV-22. We have an aircraft we are making a mission for rather than making an aircraft that fits the mission that needs to be done.

When it comes to tactics, anyone that wants to spend a Friday afternoon with a few beers in a vault swapping ideas, I’m game. Rainman said it perfectly though, be open minded, flexible, and work with the bros in big blue.

edit: afi 11-202v3 6.4 for oxygen requirements

[ 26. November 2006, 12:56: Message edited by: LRU-6.9 ]

[Guest DangerousLT]

Originally posted by BuddhaSixFour:

Sooner or later, visionary men and women will apply ingenuity and *flexibility* to those questions and the CV will successfully *integrate* itself into the AFSOC and greater AF community and this argument will be put to rest.

Let's hope it's sooner, as a lot of good guys will be putting their *asses* on the line with this thing.

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Whatever.

Oh yeah...craniums up, you sound stupid saying words like "dogfight."

The Osprey is limited by design. No amount of saying we should adapt our tactics to make up for the aircraft limitations will cover the fact that the aircraft is limited by design.

For example...forcing our guys to fly around at low altitude (in the threat) all the time because of aircraft design is just plain stupid. Sadly, it is our fault because we set the threshold requirements for the thing and we got what we asked for.

Unfortunately, the folks who wrote the ORD and were involved in setting the threshold requirements were tactically narrow minded and forgot to ask for (demand) some very important things.

[FourFans]

Well, it sounds like this thing is just another in a growing line (F-16, C-17, MH-47?) of airframes that are designed to do some of a lot of missions and no mission in particular.

Having spoken to several Budda drivers in the desert, it sounds like they are frustrated about the Tac/Strat fence they have to saddle up on.

I'll bet we'll find the pilots of the tilt-a-whirl saying the same kinda things in a few years. High and fast enough for quick deployment, but not high enough to take advantage of the altitude. Tactical and versitile, but not nearly enough to fill the -53's and -60's shoes.

Sadly, I think the days of a specific role aircraft are fading fast. Hopefully we figure out how to make the new system work without killing too many people.

FourFans

[busdriver]

anyone have actual experience with the program? Would it be feasible to remove the wing swivel hardware later in a future block mod and install pressurization equipment?

[Guest SpectrePilot]

Bottom line: the whole thing was based upon a silly 3rd grade Erector-Set manner of thinking: "I'll betcha we can build this!" And so they did....

I have a favorite saying "Just because you can doesn't mean you should."

Yep, it's an amazing machine. Yep, it can do *some* badass stuff. Yep, it's fast. But is it worth it?

I could shuffle some savings around, sell my pickup-truck, and buy myself a Corvette. That'd be really cool! But I'm not gonna.

[Guest pcoandgo]

Originally posted by busdriver:

anyone have actual experience with the program? Would it be feasible to remove the wing swivel hardware later in a future block mod and install pressurization equipment?

It would be counter-productive. The USMC is buying the bulk of the aircraft, and the USAF tagged along. In fact, even the CV-22 is handled by NAVAIR. At any rate, the blade-fold, wing-stow feature is essential to it fitting in the ship hangar bays. That is one of the features that AFSOC was interested in.

The V-22 is under constant review to reduce weight, but even more weight is to be added in Block C. I think somewhere around 300 pounds.

There is an on-board O2 generator system (OBOGS)which will supply 6, but is optimized for 4. Everyone else would have to have portables.

I realize everyone has an idea about tactics, but as was said before, this is an infil/exfil VTOL aircraft. Do any helos pressurize? I don't personally know of any.

My overall knowledge of AFSOC is pretty low, most of it from an AC-130 FE I went to KC-10 school with, but it is my understanding that AFSOC (Shadow, Talon, Paves) like it low. Am I wrong?

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Originally posted by pcoandgo:

but it is my understanding that AFSOC (Shadow, Talon, Paves) like it low. Am I wrong?

"Liking it low" and flying low all the time regardless of the threat or mission are two separate things.

Pave Lows have no choice but to go low.

Ospreys will also have no choice.

[dmeg130]

Let also not forget one of the key selling points the AF keeps touting -- "self-deployment" rather than getting folded up on a C-5.

Try making several trips across the pond at 210KIAS at 20K feet on O2 the whole way. That's a lot of oxygen. And how do you get up to take a piss? Grab a walk around bottle? We've got 19 oxygen regulators on a plane that DOES pressurize.

If you want to know why low isn't always the best, read Chuck Horner's book and see how the Brits did in Desert Storm. You defeat the threat 100% of the time if it can't reach you --no matter how well it sees you.

Still an impressive machine. Unfortunately we can't afford to buy something that meets everybody's requirements all the time. That's reality.

[kkboris]

As far as "liking it low," that's true unless the threat dictates otherwise. We decided very early on in OEF that high was the way to go, ditto OIF (after the radar threats went away). I flew from Bagram to J-bad in Nov '01 at FL320 and felt very comfortable.

I'm not sure "impressive" is the right word for the CV. Unique, innovative, maybe. Very few people in SOCOM are impressed with a machine that can't carry an ODA team with its vehicle, or a seal team with an inflated zodiac.

I have a feeling that the CV-22 guys will find themselves sitting a lot of QRF alert while the chinooks do the infils/exfils and resupplies.

[Herk Driver]

Originally posted by dmeg130:

Try making several trips across the pond at 210KIAS at 20K feet on O2 the whole way. That's a lot of oxygen.

Or fly at 10K like the older gunships do. Not that that wouldn't suck. O2 is not an issue when you have OBOGS, unless you mean that's a lot of time on the hose.

[Combat Platypus]

My new copy of Midnight Express (the 919th's propaganda magazine) includes helicopter air refueling as one of the CV's missions. I'm sure someone just cut and pasted the 8th's old mission statement into the text because, I've never seen a drogue or extra gas on it.

[ 30. November 2006, 01:56: Message edited by: Co4life ]

[Guest croftfam]

Where are they going to put the extra gas on it? It's like the Navy using a version of the E/A-6B (not sure which) to gas up the navy fighters.

[Rocker]

Originally posted by Co4life:

My new copy of Midnight Express (the 919th's propaganda magazine) includes helicopter air refueling as one of the CV's missions. I'm sure someone just cut and pasted the 8th's old mission statement into the text because, I've never seen a drogue or extra gas on it.

Nothing more manly than "one way" missions. I thought those days were over - sign me up!

[Eeyore]

My .02. Lets face it that AFSOC desires a special niche of aircraft to accomplish several missions. The CV-22 is not the complete answer. Why did the AF chose HH-47 for CSAR?? I believe that in a decade AFSOC will only be AC-130s and Talon II's. We the nation and AF will lose several CV-22's attempting to do the mission just prove we can.

[Guest pcoandgo]

The CV-22 has provisions for an arial refueling probe and 2 fuselage mission aux tanks. MV-22s have provisions for 3 mission aux tanks. The next CV-22 will deliver with all options installed. I haven't seen a drogue for it.

[ 30. November 2006, 21:54: Message edited by: pcoandgo ]

[M2]

Just a short revival of this thread to mention that the January 2007 issue of MOAA's Military Officer magazine has a good article on the Osprey. To clarify the cost per airframe:

Another drawback, critics say, is the Osprey's price tag, which was estimated at $24 million each in 1986. Now the cost is pegged at $73 million per aircraft, in part because of redesign and rebuilding costs. Bell-Boeing has announced that lean manufacturing techniques and other cost-cutting techniques should bring that price down to about $58 million by 2010.

Cheers! M2

[M2]

This was posted on Miltary.com today...

Cheers! M2

V-22 Flaws Called 'Lethal'

Fort Worth Star-Telegram | January 20, 2007

Hoping to re-energize congressional opposition to the Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey, critics of the controversial tilt-rotor aircraft released a study Thursday warning that the aircraft is plagued by inherent design flaws and will endanger U.S. lives when it goes into combat this year.

The study, commissioned by the Center for Defense Information, a Washington think tank, calls for Congress to scrap the V-22 and replace it with a lower-costing helicopter capable of performing similar missions, although it would be slower.

Co-manufactured by Bell Helicopter Textron of Fort Worth and Boeing Helicopters of Ridley Park, Pa., the Osprey was near cancellation early in the decade after four crashes killed 30. Two crashes occurred in 2000, resulting in 23 deaths.

Learn more about the V-22 Osprey

The program has rebounded after a redesign and more than 19,000 hours of flight tests.

It now has strong support in Congress as Marines move toward sending the first V-22 squadrons into combat -- possibly Iraq or Afghanistan -- by the summer.

But the center's study, "V-22: Wonder Weapon or Widow Maker?" warns that the hybrid aircraft still has "operational, aerodynamic and survivability challenges that will prove insurmountable, and lethal, in combat."

"We're trying to alert the system that the problems haven't gone away," said Winslow Wheeler, director of the center's Straus Military Reform Project, which monitors military and national-security issues.

The report prompted a scathing rebuttal from the V-22 manufacturing team and its defenders in the military, who contended that the study rehashed problems that have been corrected.

"It really baffles us as to why this organization would come out with an anti-V-22 diatribe when clearly the aircraft is performing well," Bell-Boeing spokesman Bob Leder said. "Apparently, they just used a lot of out-of-date information -- or disinformation."

Among other points, the study says the V-22 remains susceptible to a dangerous aerodynamic phenomenon known as a vortex ring state, which occurs when a rotor becomes enmeshed in its own downwash and loses lift.

V-22 pilots, under pressure to avoid enemy gunfire, run the risk of triggering a vortex ring by descending too fast under combat conditions, said Lee Gaillard, a Philadelphia science and military writer who authored the report. Rapid descent vertically or at low forward air speed "creates conditions ripe for VRS," the report said.

"If the Osprey goes into combat, it may cause its own casualties," Gaillard said in outlining the report at a Center for Defense Information briefing.

A vortex ring state was blamed for one of the crashes in 2000.

But James Darcy of the Navy's V-22 Joint Program Office said testing and review have proven that the V-22 is far less vulnerable to vortex rings than traditional helicopters and can easily speed through the turbulent air by tilting the engines forward.

The Marine Corps plans to buy 360 MV-22s to replace aging helicopters to speed troops and supplies into combat.

The Air Force plans to buy 50 CV-22s for special operations, and the Navy plans to buy 48 Ospreys for rescue operations.

Copyright 2006 Fort Worth Star-Telegram

(Editted to add link)

[ 25. January 2007, 11:52: Message edited by: M2 ]