View Full Version : "Osprey May Win Its War"
Dallas Morning News
May 19, 2003
Osprey May Win Its War
Changes in aircraft's design are impressing some military critics
By Richard Whittle, The Dallas Morning News
WASHINGTON – Pentagon procurement czar Edward "Pete" Aldridge retires Friday. But three days before he does, Mr. Aldridge will chair one last high-level meeting on the V-22 Osprey, the Marine Corps' star-crossed tilt-rotor troop transport.
A year ago, that prospect might have set stomachs to churning at Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. of Fort Worth and Boeing Co., who make the Osprey.
After two fatal V-22 crashes in 2000, Mr. Aldridge, the undersecretary of defense for acquisitions, said he was skeptical the helicopter-airplane hybrid would ever be safe in combat.
But after a partial redesign and nearly a year of flight tests, the Osprey seems to be winning over top Pentagon decision-makers. And maybe even Mr. Aldridge.
"We really believe we're on the up slope," said Terry Dake, a retired Marine Corps four-star general who runs Bell's government business arm.
The turnaround became evident in February when Mr. Aldridge visited the flight test program at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Md.
Near the end of his trip, he recommended "that we – I think the words I heard were, 'Begin preparing for success,' " said Sean Bond, Bell's V-22 program director.
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Stephen Cambone, one of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's most trusted aides, also came away impressed when they visited the test program last fall.
Mr. Wolfowitz subsequently ordered the Air Force, which plans to buy 50 V-22s for special operations, to study how to "accelerate fielding" of the Osprey if it were "judged airworthy in the May 2003 time frame."
And Mr. Cambone told reporters that the V-22 would give the Marines "enormous capabilities" if it proved itself in testing. The Marines want 360 Ospreys as troop transports.
The V-22 uses two huge wingtip rotors to take off and land like a helicopter but tilts them forward to fly like an airplane. The unorthodox design gives the Osprey far more speed and range than a helicopter but the same ability to land in tight spaces and hover.
Those capabilities could revolutionize air assault and special operations tactics, Osprey advocates say.
Some critics contend that at $68 million or more each, the Osprey is too expensive. They also question whether the V-22 will be able to do everything its makers claim.
"The issue is: Dollar for dollar, would it be better to have a bunch of Ospreys or to have upgraded, modern conventional helicopters?" said Philip Coyle, who headed Pentagon weapons testing from 1994 to 2001.
Still, "there's a high likelihood that the program will get a thumbs up" when Mr. Aldridge's Defense Acquisition Board meets Tuesday, said defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute.
Mr. Aldridge's spokeswoman, Cheryl Irwin, said he wouldn't talk about the V-22 until the acquisition board's meeting.
The panel, whose members include the heads of the armed services and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will merely review the flight test schedule rather than make life-or-death decisions on the Osprey, Ms. Irwin said.
Tension remains high in the V-22 test program, though, and many fear that any mistake could spell doom.
In March, program officials suspended flights for two weeks when hydraulic line tubing supplied by a subcontractor proved faulty. They also fired the subcontractor.
A hydraulic leak led to a December 2000 crash that killed four Marines, and rerouting the V-22's hydraulic lines was one of the major steps taken before flights resumed last year.
Osprey advocates, however, are growing confident enough to speak openly of their hope that the Pentagon might soon decide to give Bell and Boeing a multiyear contract – and even increase the number of V-22s built annually from 11 to 15 or more.
"There's been a lot of discussion along those lines," Mr. Bond said.
Support for the program in Congress is substantial, said Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Clarendon, whose district includes the Amarillo plant where Bell assembles the Osprey.
"There may be a few people who remain concerned – mainly those people who represent other helicopter manufacturers," Mr. Thornberry said.
Earlier this month, the Armed Services Committees of the House and Senate approved without significant debate the Pentagon's request for $1.6 billion to build 11 more V-22s in fiscal year 2004, which begins Oct. 1, he noted.
Defense analysts and others say three factors are helping rejuvenate the Osprey's reputation:
*Flight tests at Patuxent River for the Marines and in California for the Air Force, which plans to buy at least 50 V-22s for special operations missions, have gone well.
*The military's dramatically increased use of special operations troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has whetted Pentagon interest in the V-22's potential.
*No V-22s have crashed since flight testing resumed.
As of Thursday, test pilots at Patuxent River had completed 175 flights totaling 399 ˝ hours since last May, Bell spokesman Bob Leder said. At Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., where the Air Force version is being tested, 28 flights totaling more than 63 hours have been conducted since September.
Bell officials say the Patuxent River tests have disproved one of the chief knocks against the Osprey – that its wingtip rotors make it likely to flip and crash if one stalls in a too-rapid descent. Such a stall was blamed for an April 2000 crash in Arizona that killed 19 Marines.
V-22 test pilots have found that when the Osprey goes into such a stall, they can fix it in a matter of seconds by simply tilting the rotors forward a few degrees, Mr. Bond said.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, meanwhile, where long distances put large demands on helicopters and special operations forces, have whetted appetites for the Osprey at the Air Force Special Operations Command.
If the V-22 proves itself in tests, "We will be very excited to have them," said Lt. Gen. Paul V. Hester, the Special Operations commander.
The V-22 would "cover the missions that we've observed in Afghanistan and Iraq faster, at higher altitudes out of small arms fire; be able to go deeper without refueling; and do longer range missions in one period of darkness," Gen. Hester said.
The Air Force's chief spokesman, William Bodie, raised a caution flag, however.
"The position of the overall leadership of the Air Force is identical to the leadership of the [Defense] Department," Mr. Bodie said. "We still have to see if the V-22 is going to work fully as advertised."
Ever see one of these land in the sand?
I haven't, but the PAX Airshow is this weekend so I hope to see one in action.
List of static displays from The Tester:
One display representing the future of military aviation will be the X-35C, Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter carrier-based concept demonstrator. . . .
The V-22 Osprey. . . .
Also on display will be the one-of-a-kind VECTOR X-31, which was delivered to Pax River in 2000 for the VECTOR test program. . . .
Military rotary wing aircraft on static display will also include the AH-1W Super Cobra, the new and upgraded AH-1Z Super Cobra, the UH-1N Huey, the new and upgraded UH-1Y Huey, Sikorsky H-60S, TH-57 Bell Jet Ranger, Sikorsky H-53 Sea Stallion, TH-6B Cayuse, UH-60A Black Hawk, and OH-58C Kiowa.
Fixed-wing aircraft on static display include F/A-18F Super Hornet, F/A-18C Hornet, T-45 Goshawk, EA-6B Prowler, C-130 Hercules, P-3 Orion, S-3 Viking, E-2C Hawkeye, T-2C Buckeye, T-38A Talon, NU-1B Otter, U-6A Beaver. An Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt and Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon will also be on display.
Historical aircraft on static include a Piaggio Focke Wulf 149 trainer, two Yak 18s, Piper L-4 Grasshopper, C-60 Lodestar, Cessna L-19 Bird Dog, US-2B Tracker and PV-2 Harpoon.
Headlining Pax River's celebration of a century of powered flight and the station's 60th anniversary will be the Navy's Flight Demonstration Squadron, the Blue Angels. Parking and admission for Air Expo '03 are free. Gates open at 9 a.m. The flying portion of the show begins at 11 a.m. and will run until approximately 4 p.m.
Bravo_One_Three
20 May 2003, 11:53
Originally posted by lrd
Dallas Morning News
May 19, 2003
Osprey May Win Its War
Some critics contend that at $68 million or more each, the Osprey is too expensive. They also question whether the V-22 will be able to do everything its makers claim.
If the thing works, it will be a damn sight better than those Vietnam-Era airframes our troops are flying around in now. CH-46's are unsafe, and have been for years. Cost isn't a factor for all I care.
NewportBarGuy
20 May 2003, 12:08
Originally posted by KJ
Ever see one of these land in the sand?
Huge sand plume?
Originally posted by NewportBarGuy
Huge sand plume? Like flying through the eye of a dust devil?
Is it worse then a CH-53E? or Chinook?
Originally posted by WSC Guy
Is it worse then a CH-53E? or Chinook?
The rotor wash is about three times worse than an MH-53 in my reckoning. Doing a stokes hoist on an inert dummy, if you didn't have one guy holding down the dummy the whole time, it would roll away. I can't even imagine what it will be like underneath those rotors in the water. I bet at that airshow they stay on the concrete. Everywhere it landed in the field left burn marks. I wonder if they fixed that? They fixed the fast rope problem by imbedding lead in the ropes to give them enough weight not to whip around like spaghetti in a hurricane. It is better than a "before-Vietnam" designed utility helicopter, no doubt. The 53 and 46/7 are old hat and need to be modernized by a new airframe, BUT there are new helicopters out there now-a-days that are just as fast as the Osprey. Hell, those stubby winged, push-tail, vector thrust babies give me thrill. The ACC HX program picked a helo over it, but you notice Congress pulls the strings. The only other thing I hate being pushed on us, is the idea that if it is three times faster than a huey (not a 60), you will pick up three times more survivors. Using that logic, an F-16 will pick up ten times more (not). I would truly love to see a rescue vehicle capable of keeping up with the strike package, but it must be able to do it's job at the terminal area. Either way, if the Osprey is bought for AFSOC, PJ's will have to become a much more refined ground force. I feel the politics will force this airframe down the operators throats, so they will have to make it work. Ever get tired of making something work, versus being designed to work right the first time?
Either way, if the Osprey is bought for AFSOC, PJ's will have to become a much more refined ground force.
KJ, would you extrapolate a little?
KJ
Were you part of the test team at Hurlburt?
Can't imagine something worse then a MH-53, got picked up and rolled by a 53 in San Vito a couple of years ago. Not fun.
I had a Pave driver tell me the reason AFSOC didn't go with the "E" was downwash prevented most overwater work from being done, if this is worse then the PJ's have their work cut out for them.
Lead in the ropes, guess it gives new meaning to "get the lead out"
sorry, had to say it.
it2x18 – If, the aircraft cannot hover over the survivor, then they have to find a nearby clearing and deploy a PJ team to bring the survivor to the aircraft. For example, many of the rescues in Vietnam had survivors still in their parachutes, stuck in trees and hurt from forced ejection injuries, the kind of rotor wash we are talking about blows trees down and also breaks the limbs off nearby trees. Let me tell you, when the FE does a hoist, the wash pushes the cable out to the one o'clock. Hence, the days of the aircraft commanders that will not let "his" PJs get of the hoist or outside the rotor tip path, will become obsolete.
WSC - Sir, let me just say I worked with those that did the test and saw the video's. To include the follow-on stokes testing. The Marines were happy though.
Is the idea sound? The Vietnam era guys were begging for something like the Osprey. I think the idea is sound, but the current version needs more work, and I am not talking about engine linkages, holes drilled under the exhausts, hydraulic lines or other pilot/aircraft design parameters. Boeing, is selling a product. But the attitude of aircraft performance versus actual capablity gets blurred. For example, they wouldn’t even add an external hoist because it would shave off 10 or 15 knots from their published air speed. Instead, they are forcing the user to use an internal piece of shit that takes up the top half of the door and leaves little room to get in or out. I don’t see these people seriously risking a major design change to accommodate a serious combat version outside of a utility airframe stock. What do I want to see? I am concerned with hovering over parachutes in trees and one-man life rafts in the water at night. The cabin should be bigger for AFSOC, but not necessarily CSAR. The original aircraft design and crew compliment does not include aerial gunners. This career field will fight to include themselves on the crew ratio (and at two per), would be my guess. I would, if I were them, but the powers that be will now have a personnel fight, as the PAVE engineers will also have to fight to keep the second FE onboard that they currently have on the MH-53s today, but are not projected for in Osprey. Losing people and Palace Balance suck. Look to see these two career fields pulling out the stops to save manpower. Look also to see the personnel bean counters try to steal those manpower positions to field maintenance positions for the next generation F-22 fighters. The original Osprey design just has one flight engineer in the back (typical idiot, never been in a war, type thinking). Having at least two or three folks in the cabin is a good thing, but it should be written into the combat design UNLIKE the MH-53s, or the H-3s before them, hell…every rescue helicopter or fixed wing there ever was (except the 60, but the 60 was not really designed for rescue either, but that is another story.) This is all just my opinion, and I am sure that you can find lots of guys that will vehemently argue my thoughts.
specwarnet
21 May 2003, 19:04
Good points. Carlton Meyer over at g2mil.com (http://www.g2mil.com) has some other interesting points. I think the cabin size is a joke, personally.
Also V-22 test pilots have found that when the Osprey goes into such a stall, they can fix it in a matter of seconds by simply tilting the rotors forward a few degrees, Mr. Bond said.
Bullshit. when you're coming in to land you don't have a couple of seconds. And this is precisely the time that these stalls happen.
KJ
Thanks, you are the first person I've heard give reasons (other then "it sucks") on the Osprey. I have to agree, that it is a good idea (technology wise) but we are probably trying to push it too fat, too fast.
Hopefully the 60 crowd will get a new aircraft (Sikorsky). I think the powers to be want the Osprey so they can "phase out" the AF's helo force.
bitburger
22 May 2003, 08:06
This is one of the proposed replacements:
The US101 is the American version of the EH101 selected by five NATO countries and Japan. The US101 will provide maximum mission performance to the U.S. military services: this helicopter has state-of-the-art technology, customized mission equipment, proven reliability and low total ownership cost.
Multimission Flexibility
Combat search and rescue (CSAR)
Tactical troop transport (TTT)
Battlefield support
Search and rescue (SAR)
Maritime surveillance
Executive transport
Airborne Mine Countermeasures (AMCM)
Logistics support
Dependability
All-weather, day or night operation, full rotor ice protection
Three engines and superior One Engine Inoperative (OEI) performance
Exceptional level of system redundancy
High level of aircraft availability
Low pilot and crew workload with glass cockpit and coupled AFCS
bitburger
22 May 2003, 08:08
this thing can even carry a loaded Dune Buggy.
KJ,
Thank you for the enlightenment.
If, the aircraft cannot hover over the survivor, then they have to find a nearby clearing and deploy a PJ team to bring the survivor to the aircraft. For example, many of the rescues in Vietnam had survivors still in their parachutes, stuck in trees and hurt from forced ejection injuries, the kind of rotor wash we are talking about blows trees down and also breaks the limbs off nearby trees. Let me tell you, when the FE does a hoist, the wash pushes the cable out to the one o'clock. Hence, the days of the aircraft commanders that will not let "his" PJs get of the hoist or outside the rotor tip path, will become obsolete.
That was my inclination to what you were saying, but I wanted to be sure. It does appear that with the increased versatility in recent PJ history, refining ground tactics is in order anyway. I have encountered some current PJ's who already feel passionate about that.
Palace Balance
My castle vs. you castle??
bitburger,
The US 101 is a European Aircraft, I doubt if Congress would allow us tO by-pass Sikorsky, and liscense build a European aircraft (with French components).
I think Sikorsky calls theirs the S-92 (specwarnet, can you verify?).
NewportBarGuy
22 May 2003, 14:05
Originally posted by WSC Guy
bitburger,
The US 101 is a European Aircraft, I doubt if Congress would allow us the by-pass Sikorsky, and liscense build a European aircraft (with French components).
I think Sikorsky calls theirs the S-92 (specwarnet, can you verify?).
Why not? The Coast Guard uses the Aerospatiale HH-65... And the French based design (US built) HU-25 Guardians. As well as Italian-designed Agusta A109E Power helicopters. They have worked fairly effectively. Three Dolphins have crashed in service related accidents since 1985.
I hate the stinky French as much as the next guy, but they seem to make fairly decent birds at costs the Coast Guard can manage. (Never flew in one, never flown one.) Now that the Coasties are out from under an agency that builds and maintains roads, perhaps they will get a better budget and change their procurement methods?
specwarnet
22 May 2003, 15:35
Yeah WSC, it's the S-92 (http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/s92/) although they're referring to the military version as the H-92 (http://www.sikorsky.com/details/0,3036,CLI1_DIV69_ETI905,00.html)
NBG; the Dauphins are a good point but also a lesson. The Coast Guard got the aircraft, but they were forced to use American Engines on them. Not saying that's bad, but the engines that come stock on a Dauphin are better than the Allison's they used. The allison (now Rolls Royce) was really the only option. I spent a year wrenching on Aerospatiale, Hughes, & Bell helos so I know the engines in question. As long as it's the best aircraft and they're not getting pork, then we're doing right by our servicement. That said, I'd also like to keep Sikorsky healthy and would prefer that the H-92 would be used over the EH-101 in that consideration.
PS, anyone here hear that Blair wrote a personal letter to Bush asking him to consider a british helo for the Marine's presidential/VIP helo squadron?
What British helo did he have in mind? Mark you, I am old hat, but the last time I was at Odinham they had CH-47’s and Puma’s for their force. Perhaps some Augusta Westland buys for lowering the costs on Royal Navy purchases of the Super Lynx? Don’t see us going to any of those. The euro and H-92 are both fine helicopters but the future deals with stubby wings and variable direction tail rotor thrust. Just my two pesos worth.
specwarnet
22 May 2003, 21:44
Not sure where I originally heard it from but I found this article
Not much free about trade (http://www.thenassauguardian.com/editorial/290975435857546.php).
From the article:
The latest round in the war of national order books is being fought over Marine One, the White House helicopter that, since the days of Dwight Eisenhower, has always been a Sikorsky, a made-in-the-USA machine designed by an expatriate Russian.
AgustaWestland, a British-Italian company, is right up there in the running, a situation that would have been unthinkable once upon a time but is part of the shifting alliances of the 21st century, in which British Prime Minister Tony Blair is President George W. Bush's best buddy. In fact, Mr. Blair intervened with a handwritten letter boosting the AgustaWestland bid.
As the president of AgustaWestland pointed out, the Sikorsky is about as American as anything else in the world of global monoliths, built as it is in co-operation with partners in China, Taiwan, Spain, Japan and Brazil.
All rather odd? Well, turnabout is fair play, the saying goes, and Queen Elizabeth II is after all another customer of the American Sikorsky company.
specwarnet
22 May 2003, 21:48
Ahh.. just found this:
Last week AgustaWestland, a helicopter joint venture between Britain's GKN and Italy's Finmeccanica, teamed up with rival American company Bell to build a US version of its proven EH-101 craft under the leadership of Lockheed Martin.
The team is bidding to re place up to 20 of the 30-year-old Marine One fleet of green-and-white Sikorski helicopters that are regularly seen ferrying Mr Bush between the White House and Camp David.
WIth Bell & Lockheed Martin partnering I suspect Bush will be riding in the EH-101.
Yes, I could see them going with the XH-101. BTW, congratulations on the APO enty swn. I am not allowed to vote, but I would have given the yes, two weeks ago anyway.
specwarnet
22 May 2003, 22:00
Thanks... it means a lot coming from you and everyone else who voted yea.
I wouldn't count Sikorsky out. Bell-Boeing are building the V-22, and Bell is busy rebuilding all the AH/UH-1's for the Marines. We tend to spread the wealth when it comes to contracts, plus I don't think Bush wants to take the fallout by purchasing "European" helicopters (doesn't matter where they are built, Democrats will claim they are European) for the Marines.
We could also see both types enter the inventory, with the CG getting the US-101 (sounds like a highway).
Time will tell.
KJ- your future assesment sounds good, but will take too much time to develop. We need the birds now, which is why I think the H-92 or US-101 will get a quick nod.
Fire-Gunner
23 May 2003, 13:52
I'd like to see us get the US-101. It has 3 engines instead of two, and more power is a good thing.
As was stated in an earlier post, the US-101 and the H-92 are fielded by collaborations of companies from around the world, so it doesn't make much difference from a patriotism standpoint which one we get.
I don't think that the V-22 is suited to the terminal ops phase of Air Force Rescue. Sure, it might be fast getting there and back, but if you can't send PJ's down the hoist, fastrope, or rappel rope without almost killing them each time, then what good is it? Same thing goes for bringing them up the hoist or rope ladder. And what about low level? Are we gonna fly an airplane that's as big as a Herc at fifty feet at night on NVG's and NO GUNS? I don't think so.
We need a real helicopter, not a hybrid, that's bigger than a '60 but smaller than a '53, and it has to have guns on it!
specwarnet
23 May 2003, 14:28
We need a real helicopter, not a hybrid, that's bigger than a '60 but smaller than a '53, and it has to have guns on it!
Tank: What do you need?
Neo : Guns.... lots of guns.
:D
I vote we write both comapnies and tell them SOCnet wants to do a fly off. They give us one each and the gas and we'll run the tests ;)
Fire-Gunner
23 May 2003, 14:55
Guns. Big guns.
http://www.ets-news.com/fnherstal2.jpg
RsovRanger
30 May 2003, 04:29
Dumb question of the day. .50 minigun... why not mount it for the crewchiefs?
this concludes testing of the emergency Idontknowwhybutiwannaknow broadcast system.
Rotor Strike please
31 May 2003, 10:06
I'm a huge US101 fan as well. The real drawback, and a huge one, is that you cannot put it on a C-5 without removing the rotor mast. The H-92 can fit without the lengthy removal. While it can be done quickly, as the -53 guys can attest, one of the design requirements were that it fit without removing the mast. The US101 folks are aware of the problem and are working it, but that is the glaring problem. Other than that, the US101 is built from the ground up as a military helicopter. Gun stations were designed into it from the beginning. The S-92 is a retrofit type job.
FireGunner is right on about the terminal area issues with the V-22. If the objective was to fly as fast as possible and then land, it would be ideal, but that's not the case with CSAR. Put the Osprey in a hover and it's like a hurricane down there. I don't know many folks that have anything positive to say about a possible role as a CSAR platform. It is bad planning put forth by the bean counters in congress. If they want it so bad, they can work with it, while I do something else. But, they don't ever ask the operators what we want, so we're at their mercy. Fuckers.
RsovRanger,
The GAU-19 .50cal mini-gun is a monster. It is so large and produces so much recoil that it cracked mounts and airframes of the -60's that it flew on. The push is now on for the M3M that FireGunner posted. It has a higher rate of fire than the M2/Gau-18, and fires from an open bolt. It is real similiar to the M-240 in operation and works and works and works.....Spectacular piece of hardware!!! The problem is that FN cannot make them quick enough for the Air Force/Guard/Reserves as the Marine Corps ordered almost all the factory can turn out. It's almost too desireable.
The problem is that FN cannot make them quick enough for the Air Force/Guard/Reserves as the Marine Corps ordered almost all the factory can turn out. It's almost too desireable.
Only if it adversely effects the DMP, right?
CV-22 program status article
http://www.sotech-kmi.com/articles.cfm?DocID=121
Ahh...Jim Teeple. Almost crashed into a mountainside with him one night back in 84 when we were stationed together in McClellan. Seems to me, one time we were having a drink in Florida, when he realized it was his birthday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/business/06CHOP.html?hp
NYT on the V-22
NOTE: My bad, I was trying to conserve SOCNET bandwidth. NYT wants ya to be a registered user to read the article onsite.
The link just leads me to a NY Times log-in page. Sorry.
specwarnet
6 July 2003, 12:20
So here's the article:
A Final Push for the Bedeviled, Beloved Osprey
By LESLIE WAYNE
PATUXENT RIVER NAVAL AIR STATION, Md.
IN the clear summer sky, the V-22 Osprey was showing its stuff. It went backward, zoomed at an angle, hovered close to the ground and then shot straight up into the air. Buck Rogers himself couldn't have created a more dramatic sight: a hybrid craft, half helicopter and half airplane, that danced in the sky and appeared to defy the laws of aerodynamics.
It was exactly the performance the Marine Corps wanted to show.
After two decades in development, the Marines, along with the Osprey's contractors, Boeing and the Bell Helicopter subsidiary of Textron, are making their final push to gain Pentagon approval for the Osprey, an aircraft as high in promise as in problems. The government has spent more than $12 billion so far on the Osprey, which has the notoriety of having suffered three fatal crashes in test flights, leading to the deaths of 30 people, 26 of them Marines.
Still, the Marines are determined, and they see the Osprey as crucial to their mission in the world. "It won't be long before everyone wants one of these," said Col. Daniel Schultz, the V-22 program manager. It's not hard to see why. The Osprey, which can take off like a helicopter and fly like a plane, can travel twice as fast and five times as far as the Marines' current helicopter fleet, from the Vietnam era. "It's the promise of the future," he added.
It is a future that some people hope never comes. Neither the Osprey's razzle-dazzle aerobatics nor the Marine Corps's doggedness has been able to silence critics, who remain convinced that the Osprey's design is too complicated and inherently flawed, that the craft is being pushed into production without adequate testing and that it is simply too dangerous and too expensive.
"The Marines have a tremendous can-do attitude," said Philip E. Coyle III, a senior adviser at the Center for Defense Information, a military research group in Washington. "But when they're overly committed to a program like this, they can end up looking foolish as well as killing people." Mr. Coyle is a former assistant defense secretary who ran the Pentagon's weapons testing program in the 1990's.
Just last May, the General Accounting Office offered its own criticisms. It said the Osprey program "plans to enter full-rate production without ensuring that the manufacturing processes are mature" and that Osprey production continues with inadequate assessments.
But critics fear that the passion of its supporters and the weight of history will keep moving the project along. "The Osprey is on the road to recovery, and the proponents are pushing really hard," said Chris Hellman, a director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, a research group in Washington. "My problems with the Osprey remain. The V-22 has gotten to the point where so much money has gone into it, it will probably go ahead regardless."
OR maybe not. Despite this aura of inevitability, the Marines and Osprey contractors know that, given the craft's troubled history, they can afford no more missteps. Clouding their optimism is the fear that something — again — could go terribly wrong. Should the Osprey have another fatal accident, even as strong a supporter as Colonel Schultz acknowledges, "we'd be out of business."
For that reason, the Osprey's backers are pulling out all the stops. After being removed from the skies for more than a year and a half after two fatal crashes in 2000, the Osprey is undergoing a redesigned round of test flights the Marines say should silence critics and ensure that the craft is safe.
In addition, the Osprey is starring in a publicity campaign aimed at opinion makers, both inside government and out. Members of the news media, as well as members of Congress, are being brought to the naval base here to see the Osprey put through its paces.
By the end of 2005, the Pentagon will decide whether to ask Congress to finance a combat-ready fleet of 458 Ospreys — at a projected price of $48 billion. The bulk of the Ospreys would go to the Marines, with 98 for the Army Special Forces and the Navy. For the most part, the Osprey is designed for amphibious troop transport and assault.
The Osprey has also received backing from the Bush administration, which is calling for a "low rate" production of 11 test Ospreys annually in the fiscal 2004 Pentagon budget. A big boost came in May, when the Pentagon's departing weapons chief had an 11th-hour conversion and, on his last day on the job, switched from being a critic to a supporter.
That official, Under Secretary of Defense Edward C. Aldridge Jr., who previously said he had "some real problems" with the Osprey, said he had changed his mind because recent tests gave him "sufficient confidence" in its safety and reliability. In a statement, he added that the craft would provide "much-needed capability to the war fighter" and even called for increasing Osprey production above the current 11 test planes a year, of which 7 are now in the skies. A spokesman for Mr. Aldridge said he was not available to comment on his change.
Aiding the Marines' push in Washington are two formidable lobbying powerhouses, Boeing and Textron. Each is a 50 percent partner in the Osprey and has platoons of lobbyists working Capitol Hill, along with those of the Osprey's many subcontractors.
An example of their efforts was on display last month as Boeing, Bell Helicopter and the Marines jointly sponsored a V-22 media expo at the naval base here to demonstrate the Osprey's prowess to those who could spread the word. Wearing identical sea-foam-green polo shirts with a V-22 logo, dozens of Boeing and Bell employees, along with similarly clad Osprey subcontractors, set up booths in the airfield's hangar to promote their wares and echo the positive spin of the Marines. "Forward with Confidence," was the theme.
The enthusiasm of Boeing and Bell is not surprising. Right now, each Osprey has a price tag of $68.7 million; by comparison, an F-16 fighter jet costs around $20 million. One of the challenges for the Osprey program is to bring the per-craft cost down to around $58 million, a number critics say is still staggeringly expensive for a craft that is essentially a replacement helicopter.
With numbers this large, the Osprey is expected to give each company up to $20 billion over the life of the 12-year project. For Boeing, which had revenue of $54 billion last year, this is a nice additional source of cash. For Bell Helicopter, it is more important than that. Even today, the project accounts for 38 percent of the annual revenue of Bell Helicopter, which also wants to use the Osprey's tilt-rotor technology to make a commercial version of the craft. The Osprey also accounts for 6 percent of Textron's $10.7 billion revenue.
"While Boeing has a lot in development, Textron does not have any new military helicopters," said Paul H. Nisbet, an aerospace analyst at JSA Research in Newport, R.I. "This is a major program for them." Luckily for Textron, it has the Marines. "In Washington, the Marines usually get what they want," Mr. Nisbet said.
IN a presentation before the aerial demonstration here, Colonel Schultz defended the revised testing program that began when the Osprey returned to the skies in May 2002. In the new program, many of Osprey's initial developmental tests were eliminated — to the dismay of many critics — and replaced with ones that Colonel Schultz said were better designed to simulate battlefield conditions and address the problems underlying the crashes. The main problems involved the Osprey's aerodynamics and hydraulics.
"This has not been a fluffy flight-test program," said Colonel Schultz, with a model V-22 in his hand to demonstrate his points. "It's time to take another look at this plane. We have made incredible strides. We have confidence in this plane, and we are ready to give it to the fleet."
Not only do the Osprey's backers feel that it's good enough for the military, they also feel it is good enough for the president. They are angling to have a V-22 Osprey selected in the current competition to replace Marine One, the presidential helicopter. "It would be perfect for the president," said Bob Leder, a spokesman for Bell Helicopter.
specwarnet
6 July 2003, 12:22
Among the unconvinced are retired military aviators, some members of Congress and other military industry analysts. They say the problems behind the multiple crashes have not been resolved and that the complicated design is only setting up the Osprey for more tragic problems — the current optimism notwithstanding. For years, a group of retired military aviators, calling itself the "red ribbon panel," has issued one critical warning after another.
"While there are some very good design tricks, it's got the same basic problems," said Harry P. Dunn, a retired Air Force colonel who heads the group. "It's not a question of if someone gets killed, but when."
Most critics say the Osprey lacks enough maneuverability at low altitudes, and they question whether the manufacturers have solved an aerodynamic problem, called vortex ring state, that caused an April 2000 crash in Arizona in which 19 Marines died. In that condition, the craft becomes caught in its own turbulence and loses lift.
Representative Jim Gibbons, a Nevada Republican who flew F-4's in Vietnam and in the Persian Gulf war as an Air Force combat pilot, is a doubter, too. "This has all the earmarks of becoming the Edsel of the aviation industry," he said. "The Osprey is a nice tool, but is it the right tool in the circumstances?" asked Mr. Gibbons, a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
He questions Osprey's effectiveness at high altitudes, like the mountains of Afghanistan. He also says the downdraft that comes from the Osprey's powerful rotors as it hovers is so great as to make Marine rescue missions impossible, especially over water.
Yet with Boeing, Bell and Osprey subcontractors spreading V-22 work in over 40 states and 200 Congressional districts, Mr. Gibbons is one of the few critics in Congress. "The industry has a very heavy hand when it comes to making the program work in Washington," he said. "All they have to do is go to Congress with those employees."
The history of Osprey crashes casts a long shadow over the sales effort. The April 2000 crash that killed 19 Marines occurred just as the Pentagon was to decide whether to approve the Osprey. The following December, an Osprey crashed in a forest outside Jacksonville, N.C., killing four more Marines. After that crash, which was attributed to a leak in hydraulic lines, the Osprey was grounded and testing suspended.
Nearly a decade earlier, in July 1992, a test Osprey crashed into the Potomac River, killing four Boeing employees and three Marines. Even at that early date, the Osprey was catching flak. Vice President Dick Cheney, who was defense secretary at the time, repeatedly tried to halt the program, arguing that it was too costly. But every time he tried to starve the Osprey for financing, he was overruled by a Congress that kept the money flowing.
AT the Osprey demonstration here, Colonel Schultz and his team of test pilots put the Osprey through aerial paces intended to counter specific complaints. In a mere 12 seconds, the craft can tilt its rotor, switching from helicopter to airplane mode. As the Osprey hovered like a helicopter 25 feet off the ground, doing a tap dance of gyrations, Colonel Schultz said: "Can't maneuver? I believe this shows maneuvers."
The craft then rocked back and forth in the air, did a nose dive toward the ground, hovered, and finally put its nose in the air and headed upward. It even demonstrated that it could land with only one engine. (The other was idling.) When the Osprey finished its 15-minute show, it dropped out of the sky and put its rotors into the air. Then, one by one, each blade of the rotor collapsed downward, like fading flower petals. Once collapsed, the blades then bundled themselves together. With its blades compactly tucked away in this fashion, the Osprey showed that it would not take up a lot of space on an aircraft deck — addressing another complaint.
As he stepped out of the Osprey, Boeing's top V-22 test pilot, Thomas L. MacDonald, said the air show here explained why the Marines are so gung-ho for the Osprey. "As a former Navy airplane and helicopter pilot, I'm acutely aware of the limitations of both," Mr. MacDonald said. "With the Osprey, the Marines will be able to get to the fight without dying on the way and get out without being killed on the way back."
frogstyle
7 July 2003, 01:10
Very interesting reading.
Originally posted by specwarnet
............and they question whether the manufacturers have solved an aerodynamic problem, called vortex ring state.......
If it was a solvable problem, it would have been fixed 20 years ago. It was first "discovered" in 1922.
Vortex Ring State (also, but incorrectly, referred to as settling with power,) is inherent in all rotory wing aircraft. It's not a problem that can be "fixed" but it can be avoided by proper training.
There have been numerous problems with the Opsrey, I just don't see this as one of them.
Although VRS is inherent in rotary wing aerodynamics, and training is the answer generally, the V-22 has a particularly nasty VRS problem. With any other RW craft a rate of decent must be established for the conditions to be condusive for VRS. That is why it has been called "settling with power" for so long. A RW craft that has sufficient power to maintain an OGE hover will not enter VRS without the pilot establishing a rate of decent, (generally thought to be equal to or greater than 300 fpm). It is not quite that simple with the V-22. The "rotors" on the V-22 do not intermesh, as in the -47 series craft, but are instead seperated by a distance almost equal to their rotational radius. So, even with power to spare in an OGE hover the V-22, in the right wind conditions, can create for itself what might be most accurately described as self-disturbed/created tip vorticies that change the lift vector on each "rotor", requireing more power, creating more self-induced lift vector variation...
The end result is that a situation simmilar to vortex ring state is created, without any rate of decent to cause it. (This problem is compounded when you introduce lift vector variations from outside, such as downwash from other hovering aircraft.)
This is a design issue, not a training issue. Training will be required to work around the problem, recognize the problem, deal with the problem, etc. But the design itself creates the problem. It needs a different name, the aerodynamic state that is. People talk about the VRS problem that the V-22 has and really they are not discussing the actual problem determined to be the cause of the fatal crash.
For my nickle, the V-22 is a bad plan. But then I believe with all my heart that fly-by-wire technology is scary stuff too... I want all my controls connected physically to their mates, they may get shot out - but they won't decide they have a mind of their own.
TigerHooter
7 July 2003, 19:20
I started trying to find info on the problem yesterday, but didn't have time.
I expect they can have some wild Ng/1 variations in a cross wind, as another rotary wing hovers past.
Thanks!
Boats
24 April 2012, 23:02
Oh please.We know better, gang. Fix it or fuck it.
Ford289HiPo
24 April 2012, 23:25
KJ
Can't imagine something worse then a MH-53, got picked up and rolled by a 53 in San Vito a couple of years ago. Not fun.
San Vito is still in operation? I was there when it closed down in '93. We would practice fast roping on the golf course.
cdutchess78
25 April 2012, 07:53
Holy "old post revisited" batman! :)
vBulletin® v3.8.3, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.