CV-22 Osprey info

[Guest Safe&Clear]

I love how we're all still talking, debating, speculating, berating, whatever....

All while the Marines are already using it, in country, piece-of-sh1t or not. And we wonder why they sometimes call us the "Chair Force"...

[HiFlyer]

This is an interesting series of comments, but it reminds me of a lot of new aircraft I've seen when they first arrive. Somebody needs an aircraft to do a mission. In order to make it more acceptable to Congress, the Service PR people eventually claim it will perform every mission in the military, at half the cost. Congress then OKs the buy, but cuts the budget and actually expects it to do all that stuff (even though they know its BS), forcing the Service and contractor to try to make it happen. Since the meager dollars are now insufficient to perform all the extra stuff that got tacked on, the original reason to build the aircraft gets lost, and when it is finally delivered, it is only minimally successful for a while until more money can be found to fix the problems and refocus the effort on the intended mission. The most illustrative example of this was the F-111 (or F/FB/A/B/C/H-111, as some people described the result...McNamara wanted it to do every mission in the Navy and Air Force bag!). When it was over, it was damn good at the mission it was originally intended to do...low level penetration/attack for the AF...but it took 15 years to get there and cost a lot more money than needed. I suspect that the V-22 series will eventually be a great aircraft, but it will take a while to refine all the systems to optimize it and manage expectations.

[Guest JollyFlight21]

I love how we're all still talking, debating, speculating, berating, whatever....

All while the Marines are already using it, in country, piece-of-sh1t or not. And we wonder why they sometimes call us the "Chair Force"...

That's what I'm saying. Their is a mission for this already, but the Air Force wants to invent something "special" for it.

[HiFlyer]

That's what I'm saying. Their is a mission for this already, but the Air Force wants to invent something "special" for it.

Well, keep in mind that the Marines received their production aircraft sooner than the AF and did the original OT&E work, so they had more time to figure out how to use it to support their mission, which is more closely aligned to their existing CH-46 mission that they've had for years. The AF mission is a little more varied and they've had less time to work out the kinks. Any new system comes with its unique growing pains, and the AF will work out theirs just like the Marines did. Also, since the V-22 was originally developed largely from Navy/Marine requirements, and before the current combat scenarios evolved, the need to operate above 8,000 feet was probably not a major design spec put out by the DoD. My understanding is that the AF verson worked very well in its initial deployment to Africa. Yes, it was an "exercise", but you always practice a little before you try the hard stuff.

[Wildo67]

I love how we're all still talking, debating, speculating, berating, whatever....

All while the Marines are already using it, in country, piece-of-sh1t or not. And we wonder why they sometimes call us the "Chair Force"...

The main assumption here seems to be that the Air Force has the ability to put the CV-22 to work and have chosen not to due to talk, debate, and speculation as to the specific missions and effectiveness. This is not at all the case. The aircraft has proven that it does the mission and does it well, most of the arguments are over what it could have been, but AFSOC knows what it is (flown by the AFSOC/CC after all), and they will put it into action as soon as it is feasible. That point in time is not now for a whole number of reasons (# of aircraft, aircraft production and arrival rates, # of crewmembers, PFT issues, sustainment ability, and mx training topping off the list). The reason that it is not operationally deploying just yet is all about these factors and has absolutely nothing to do with questions of the ability to get the job done. Its my opinion that it will be deployed much sooner rather than later and it will be earlier than it should be, but the community will make do and get it done just like they always have.

Yes the community that maintains and flys the aircraft has its opinions about how it should be used and is being very vocal about them, not because they question its abilities, but because they don't want this osprey shaped peg to be plugged into a PAVELOW shaped hole because it is not using the aircraft to its full ability. We know what it can do and want to make sure that it will be used to the greatest SOCOM benefit.

Deploying right now would be possible for us although not possibly sustainable, but it would also break us at a time where we need to focus on ensuring that the community can be self sustaining. We have too many on the edge of retirement and a push to that breaking point would become a landslide that would cripple the community for several years. Leadership has thus far done the right thing and will hopefully continue to do so, but they are being pushed and will have to give in before too long, and then we will see how the community survives, but in either case the aircraft itself will do the mission just fine and will impress a lot of people along the way

But hey, thats just like my opinion man.

That's what I'm saying. Their is a mission for this already, but the Air Force wants to invent something "special" for it.

Its not about inventing something special for it, AFSOC knows exactly what it is and they want to use it like what it is, not what its "replacing" or could have been. The AFSOC/CC flys the freaking thing and he knows what it cannot do, what it can do, and what it can do well, its his job to make sure that SOCOM uses it to their greatest long term benefit, and not just solely to fill a hole that SOCOM seems to be determined to fill with an undermanned SOAR. It will do some of the same things once done by the PAVELOW, but it will not do them all, but it will also do a lot more than could be done by its "predecessor".

[Guest Jollygreen]

As far as that "rescue" goes, converting at that altitude would have violated the flight clearance at the time. If you looked down, saw that no one was alive, and were going to violate your -1 to land there, most people would have made the same decision. I'd have to run charts to see if it was possible or not, but no one in their right mind was about to risk banging up a brand new aircraft to pick up a couple of corpses.

A slow fly-by isn't sufficient to determine if someone is alive. Put PJs on the ground and be certain. The CV-22 didn't do that.

If there's a lesson from the "rescue" story above, its that if the CV had been able/willing to land there, the -60s would have had nothing to do.

But it wasn't able/willing to do so...for understandable reasons. And that is the point.

I believe the CV-22 will be a great asset to AFSOC. It won't replace the capabilities that the MH-53 provided...but I don't believe AFSOC ever intended it to do so. As for being a primary CAF rescue platform, that won't happen.

Are you serious? Do you think the dirt will make the wings fall off??? Please stick to something you know like sitting alert, before you look dumb...

He was referring to brown-out landings. Which makes you look ... "less informed".

[nsplayr]

Looks like an all-quadrant gun for the AFSOC Ospreys is coming to a battlefield near you...

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/01/...rey_gun_010409/

Marine version of tilt-rotor will get turret later

By Michael Hoffman - Staff writer

Posted : Monday Jan 5, 2009 20:27:52 EST

Special Operations Command remains on track to install all-quadrant 7.62mm Gatling guns underneath seven Air Force Special Operations Command CV-22 Ospreys in 2009, a SOCOM program manager said.

The 413th Flight Test Squadron is testing the turret-mounted gun at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. It has passed a series of tests including firing from a hover in August, said Dave Adamiak, a BAE Systems official.

Air Force requirements officials chose not to install a forward-firing gun on the Osprey at the beginning of its two-decade-long development to cut costs. A ramp-mounted .50-caliber machine gun was installed instead.

Critics had ripped defense acquisition officials for designing a tilt-rotor aircraft to infiltrate behind enemy lines and deliver special operations troops without an all-quadrant weapons system.

But in 2007, the Defense Department awarded a contract to BAE Systems to quickly deliver seven Remote Guardian Systems and install them onto CV-22 Ospreys for AFSOC deployments.

Marine versions of the Osprey will also have a forward-firing gun, but the interim weapons systems will be installed only on AFSOC birds.

But, “once the gun is qualified, the Marine Corps will determine how to best deploy the gun on the MV-22,” Marine Corps aviation spokesman Maj. Eric Dent said.

CV-22 flight engineers will fire the gun with what looks like a PlayStation controller while viewing targets on a screen that is fed images from a color camera and forward-looking infrared sensor.

Having the screen in the back will also help the special operations teams get a better idea of the situation on the ground, Adamiak said.

“A secondary benefit is that the troop commander and the guys onboard will have a lot more SA while they watch what’s happening on the screen,” he said.

The gun, turret and sensor all fit within the “hellhole” space on the belly of the Osprey.

However, the model now being testing on the Osprey is only an interim solution as SOCOM officials continue to try to develop a permanent all-quadrant weapon, said Lt. Col. Eric Forsyth, the SOCOM program manager for the CV-22 Interim Defensive Weapon System.

Testing on the interim system has moved at an “acceptable pace” with tests remaining to verify the weapon’s safety, tracking and accuracy,” Forsyth said.

A concern before testing was the gun firing on the nacelles and propellers of the tilt-rotor aircraft, which had a record of crashing during its development.

However, no rounds have hit the Osprey during testing and safeguards built into the weapons system have worked properly, Adamiak said.

[Guest dtfl]

The AFSOC/CC flys the freaking thing and he knows what it cannot do, what it can do, and what it can do well, its his job to make sure that SOCOM uses it to their greatest long term benefit,

WOW.....sorry to say but....one day, after you have been in the AF a while...you will realize just how WRONG this statement is. (Don't think a 3 star would push this because he is TOLD TO? ie political reasons?)

They decommissioned the 20th SOS..so in effect, yes, AFSOC IS replacing rotary wing lift with the CV22. I know what the "mission" is....unfortunately, the CV22 can't carry a Toyota truck, extra crewmembers (no extra regulators) or much else other than personnel and a 4 wheeler (after they offload the teams). Ive been a CC and planner in areas where we needed lift for missions and I would have had to tell the tilt-rotors "no thanks" had they been around when I was planning/executing the mission. (this was only a few years ago)

Evidently you fly it and love it. Good on ya. It will be great for the ONE mission they decided to purchase it for......well, once the MX Effectiveness rate is above ...lets throw out a #...say - 68%...and once Boeing lives up to their promise of getting rid of the MX checks which are needed practically every week (25 or 30 hours...my memory is failing me)..but they should never have gotten rid of their rotary wing assets.

Im not in charge...but if I was...there would be a few CV22s bought...and a few MORE CH47s bought. But hey...the CV is fast.

Edited January 16, 2009 by dtfl

[Guest JollyFlight21]

WOW.....sorry to say but....one day, after you have been in the AF a while...you will realize just how WRONG this statement is. (Don't think a 3 star would push this because he is TOLD TO? ie political reasons?)

They decommissioned the 20th SOS..so in effect, yes, AFSOC IS replacing rotary wing lift with the CV22. I know what the "mission" is....unfortunately, the CV22 can't carry a Toyota truck, extra crewmembers (no extra regulators) or much else other than personnel and a 4 wheeler (after they offload the teams). Ive been a CC and planner in areas where we needed lift for missions and I would have had to tell the tilt-rotors "no thanks" had they been around when I was planning/executing the mission. (this was only a few years ago)

Evidently you fly it and love it. Good on ya. It will be great for the ONE mission they decided to purchase it for......well, once the MX Effectiveness rate is above ...lets throw out a #...say - 68%...and once Boeing lives up to their promise of getting rid of the MX checks which are needed practically every week (25 or 30 hours...my memory is failing me)..but they should never have gotten rid of their rotary wing assets.

Im not in charge...but if I was...there would be a few CV22s bought...and a few MORE CH47s bought. But hey...the CV is fast.

Someone sees the light. It's funny listening to the kool-aid drinkers. No offense, but maybe one day you guys can say, "I told ya so!" I'll gladly accept my piece of humble pie.

[Wildo67]

WOW.....sorry to say but....one day, after you have been in the AF a while...you will realize just how WRONG this statement is. (Don't think a 3 star would push this because he is TOLD TO? ie political reasons?)

They decommissioned the 20th SOS..so in effect, yes, AFSOC IS replacing rotary wing lift with the CV22. I know what the "mission" is....unfortunately, the CV22 can't carry a Toyota truck, extra crewmembers (no extra regulators) or much else other than personnel and a 4 wheeler (after they offload the teams). Ive been a CC and planner in areas where we needed lift for missions and I would have had to tell the tilt-rotors "no thanks" had they been around when I was planning/executing the mission. (this was only a few years ago)

Evidently you fly it and love it. Good on ya. It will be great for the ONE mission they decided to purchase it for......well, once the MX Effectiveness rate is above ...lets throw out a #...say - 68%...and once Boeing lives up to their promise of getting rid of the MX checks which are needed practically every week (25 or 30 hours...my memory is failing me)..but they should never have gotten rid of their rotary wing assets.

Im not in charge...but if I was...there would be a few CV22s bought...and a few MORE CH47s bought. But hey...the CV is fast.

Not exactly sure where you gathered from what I wrote that a 3 star wouldn't push this because he is told to. I simply said that it is his job to ensure the aircraft gets used in the correct way based on his experience in the aircraft. We all know that the flags will always give in to the pressure from the top if it starts weighing them down, thats the political end of this job that a bunch of B.S. They either give in or they get out with the exception of very few who pick the right battles.

The argument at hand is as to whether the aircraft is ready to deploy operationally, No. The argument on my end never was that the Osprey can do all that a Helo could do, this has been established. Of course they will try to do it, that may be the most obvious statement ever made. The issue at this time is that we (Osprey community) need to be vocal about who we are, what we can do (which you don't dwell on), what we cannot do (which you do dwell on), and when we can do it. If we can convince the AFSOC/CC and he can fight for it even a little then we have done all that we can and we will fall in line when the Avalanche comes down the other side. But when the shit goes wrong we can at least throw back in their face a little "I told you so but you didn't listen to us, the people who operate the aircraft".

I agree that AFSOC is making a folly in getting out of the Helo game, but that is the decision that has been made, I also agree that the I should be given 7.3 billion dollars and anonymity so that me, my wife, and my girls could do whatever our hearts desired for the rest of our lives without being bothered, however, I do not see this dream coming to fruition any time soon. I also agree that getting some -47s for AFSOC would be great and would be able to take over the PAVELOW role in a way that the Osprey will not, but again I haven't seen one cent of my 7.3 billion yet.

As to your third paragraph, well there you have me a little, but I think that your numbers (being close to reality) obscure what is happening with the development of the aircraft. I believe these will get much better over the years, so this is one area where perhaps I will be proven to be naive over time, but I plan on doing my part to ensure that is not the way it works out. So maybe in time I can be a bitter man too(I keed, I keed), after all my toils bear no fruit.

[Guest JollyFlight21]

Jolly - Let's set a bet. What would you consider success for the CV? At what point would you eat your humble pie? What will you do if you're wrong?

I don't know, I'll have to think about that. I honestly hope it does turn into a productive airframe. I just can't get past the Air Force trying to spoon-feed us a line about how awesome it is when it ,presently anyway, has no mission, and tons of big issues.

[Guest jtek]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6712...ag=content;col1

SOCOM Signs Contract With BAE For CV-22 Gun

BAE Systems will develop an interim all-quadrant defensive weapon system for the Air Force's CV-22 Osprey aircraft, the company reported.

The $491,000 contract awarded earlier this month by the U.S. Special Operations Command calls for rapid development, installation, testing, and qualification of a weapon capability that provides defensive fire protection to all quadrants of the aircraft. The contract has a potential value of $16.3 million, according to BAE.

The belly-mounted system is remotely operated and capable of delivering accurate, sustained fire throughout the CV-22's flight envelope.

The weapon system is based on the company's Remote Guardian System, an internally-funded effort to develop a common airborne defensive capability. BAE has been investing in the RGS for more than two years and unveiled the system in October 2007 at the Modern Day Marine military exposition in Quantico, Va.

RGS is designed to be belly mounted on the Bell Helicopter Textron [TXT]- Boeing [bA] V-22. RGS is a turreted weapon system that consists of a turreted sensor and turreted Gatling gun (Defense Daily, Oct. 5).

RGS will use the Marine Corps' GAU 17, 7.62 mm mini-gun and the Air Force Special Operations Command's (AFSOC) GAU 2.

BAE is also looking at a 50 caliber design and more advanced sensors for RGS (Defense Daily, Oct. 5).

[Copyright 2006 Access Intelligence, LLC. All rights reserved.]

[Guest Curt22]

color="#000080"]

I don't know, I'll have to think about that. I honestly hope it does turn into a productive airframe. I just can't get past the Air Force trying to spoon-feed us a line about how awesome it is when it ,presently anyway, has no mission, and tons of big issues.

Sure the V-22 has some problems...ALL new things do, but I don’t know about “tons of big issues”...Perhaps you are too young to recall how many poor souls were lost in dozens of “Production” H-60 crashes back in the day from the Stab programming problems. (the "Oh Crap" stab slew switch on the cyclic sticks wasn't always there!)...We didn't give up on the H-60 then and we're not giving up on the V-22 now.

Anyhow you speak of the CV-22 having NO mission, but the mission is very clear.

The "Core" mission of all SOF aviation is the insertion, extraction, and resupply of SOF ground forces. The CV-22, like all other SOF fixed wing and VTOL assets will perform this mission. V-22 does NOT "Replace" the MH-53, nor does it replace a Talon II. Instead, this new machine fuses the advantages of speed and range of a SOF fixed wing platform with VTOL capability of rotary wing assets.

We don't always need to kill a fly with a sledgehammer...sometimes the mission is time sensitive so a slower helicopter won't do...other times a fixed wing acft can't land and a VTOL machine is required.

In the end...there is no one size fits all solution for ALL missions of all forces. There is plenty of work for all and the hard working V-22 folks will resolve their problems and learn how best to exploit the capabilities of this new machine.

[Guest JT]

What is the noise level in the V-22 cockpit. I have flown blackhawks/hercs and don't know how much more my ears can take(hearing tests going downhill).

[Fud]

Does anyone have any more status on this program for the AF? I know the platform has deployed to OIF and in pretty generalized comments about the deployment was that it went well. Same for Flintlock.

Is this program gonna be overloaded with pilots in a few years? Plagued with Maintenance problems (I heard it's mission capable rate wasn't the best in OIF)? Or is the program just going to be short of airframes (I think the AF wants like 50 sometime in our lifetime)?

Anybody with some experience in new platforms for AFSOC: Got any comments on the CV-22 program?

I wouldn't worry to much about the MCR of the CV-22 just yet, because it is still so new. Frankly, I find MCR to be an often padded statistic to make your sq/gp/wg/naf/majcom look good in the eyes of big blue. The question to be asked is this "does the airframe accomplish the mission it was made to do?" Even though it doesn't have a set mission right now, I believe it will be a valuable asset in the future, if the program is utilized correctly.

[Daredevileng1]

I know the program is only in its first few years, but has there been any talk of a follow on from the CV-22 or will it be similar to the HH-60? I read that some of the initial cadre was pulled from the Herk. Is there a chance to get to a MC-130, U-28, or some other AFSOC airframe?

[tac airlifter]

I know the program is only in its first few years, but has there been any talk of a follow on from the CV-22 or will it be similar to the HH-60? I read that some of the initial cadre was pulled from the Herk. Is there a chance to get to a MC-130, U-28, or some other AFSOC airframe?

Not a CV guy but we've heard no talk in AFSOC about a follow on, and I don't know anyone flying them who wants to leave for another airframe. If you wanted to get an MC or something after the CV, why not just do that first? It's not really the kind of platform used as a stepping stone to others, although any dudes currently flying them please correct me if I'm wrong. Just my impression as an outsider.

[drewpey]

Doing some research for a paper and would like to talk to a CV-22 guy about some general questions...(only so much you can teach yourself from books). Too busy of late to stop by and ask questions, so looking for an online contact. All emails will be through a .mil email if that helps. Pilot or Eng, no matter. Much appreciated, let me know if you can help!

[Guest Prop Blast]

I’m interested in cross-training from MC-130s to the CV-22. I know there are former -130 guys in the community and I wanted to know if they’re still accepting cross-flow pilots for the Osprey.

[TheBlueMax]

I'm interested in cross-training from MC-130s to the CV-22. I know there are former -130 guys in the community and I wanted to know if they're still accepting cross-flow pilots for the Osprey.

I'm in the pipeline right now and I came from the fixed-wing side of the house. The classes behind me nearly always have transition pilots in them. I don't know the technical Air Force answer, but I think it's safe to say yes. If you have any questions ask away.

[Guest Prop Blast]

I'm in the pipeline right now and I came from the fixed-wing side of the house. The classes behind me nearly always have transition pilots in them. I don't know the technical Air Force answer, but I think it's safe to say yes. If you have any questions ask away.

PM sent.

[Daredevileng1]

Marine Corps Continues To Support Ospreys

Oct 31, 2011

By Michael Fabey

The U.S. and its allies could not have conducted recent operations in Libya and other areas without the Bell-Boeing MV-22 Osprey, says Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos. Amos cites the Tactical Recovery of Aircraft Personnel mission that an Osprey performed during Libyan operations to rescue an Air Force pilot after his F-15 was downed. The Osprey launched from the USS Kearsarge amphibious assault ship and returned with the pilot within about 90 min. — a feat, Amos says, no other aircraft could have completed. Without the Osprey, he said during an Oct. 26 Washington Meetings Event hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, “We’d be negotiating with Gadhafi for the release of that pilot.” The aircraft’s speed, lift and flexibility have proven worth the investment so far, Amos says. He acknowledges the Marines made some development mistakes early with the Osprey program, underfunding the effort and trying to field an aircraft before it was ready to keep on schedule. The corps decided to focus on an “events-driven” and better-funded Osprey program and that has made the difference in deploying the aircraft in the past few years, he says.

[JarheadBoom]

Without the Osprey, he said during an Oct. 26 Washington Meetings Event hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, “We’d be negotiating with Gadhafi for the release of that pilot.”

Really, General?

[busdriver]

"The U.S. and its allies could not have conducted recent operations in Libya and other areas without the Bell-Boeing MV-22 Osprey"

ughhh

[Guest CAVEMAN]

"The U.S. and its allies could not have conducted recent operations in Libya and other areas without the Bell-Boeing MV-22 Osprey"

ughhh

Big crock of shit. Billions lost and a couple lives waste. Tell that to the birds.

A newly designed C-46 would have cost less, achieved desired payload/speed and gotten to the troops faster. USMC's fantasy with futuristic ideas beat me. The Navy did something similar to the F/A-18 and had a brand new and highly capable aircraft in no time.