Osprey to deploy to Iraq

[+Fates 63]

Ten new V-22 Osprey will be in Iraq for combat by September, the Marine Corps said Friday.

 

Built by Boeing Co. and Bell, a unit of Textron Inc., the planes' deployment marks a significant reversal for an aircraft program that was nearly scrapped after two deadly test crashes and a history of mechanical failures.

 

The medium-size, tilt-rotor plane, which takes off vertically like a helicopter and flies likes a plane, replaces the CH-46 Sea Knight, a 39-year-old assault helicopter used in the Vietnam War.

 

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8OG00BG2.htm

[BUFF 8]

apparently it's had some severe limitations applied as to it's use though

[+Jarhead1 27]

apparently it's had some severe limitations applied as to it's use though

 

 

They cant pay me enough to ride that flying death trap!!!!!

[BUFF 8]

They cant pay me enough to ride that flying death trap!!!!!

but what if a Marine General orders you to?

Semper Fi ...

[+EricJ 4,247]

As was discussed in the LO forums, it doesn't matter if it's got rotors or a hybrid, if it fails you're still screwed... I'd done two combat landings in a freakin C-130, so I'd rather fly that than do one of those again!

[GASCAN39 7]

According to MSNBC, "flying on a helicopter in iraq is dangerous"; since I have done that a few times in the last year, should not be any harm in riding on the eggbeater! And since they will no doubt be out in my neck o' the woods, I may get the chance. (I am just a lowly civilian contractor, so we ride whatever the he|l the military lets us, and it beats the hungover looking eastern european pilots that fly the charters!)

[Hawk MMS 0]

You get the order and you get in and fly. At least it is faster and quieter than any other means of vertical insertion. Besides, Everyone is a critic these days.

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The military's controversial V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft will head to Iraq for its first combat tour later this year, Marine officials announced Friday.

 

After 18 years and $20 billion in development, the plane will deploy to western Iraq in September to support Marine Corps combat operations for seven months, Marine officials said.

 

The plane, which is intended to replace the Corps' 40-year-old fleet of CH-46 helicopters by 2018, can fly like a plane and land like a helicopter, giving the Marines more flexibility in the field, officials said.

 

The V-22 can carry troops three times as far, twice as fast and has six to seven times more survivability than the CH-46 widely used now in Iraq, the military says.

 

The Osprey's performance has also been noticed by the Air Force, which has plans to use it as a special operations aircraft.

 

The aircraft has been redesigned after two fatal accidents in 2000 that killed 23 Marines. Accidents in 1991 and 1992 killed seven other people, but Marines say the plane's problems are in the past.

 

"It's been through extensive operational testing and evaluation, and it is our fervent feeling that this aircraft is the most capable, survivable aircraft that we carry our most important weapon system in, which is the Marine or rifleman, and that we will successfully introduce this aircraft in combat," said Lt. Gen. John G. Castellaw, deputy commandant for aviation.

 

Critics say the tilt-rotor design may still be too unsafe for the complexities of flying in combat operations.

 

The Marine Corps maintains it is a much more controllable aircraft in those situations.

 

Since 2003, the Marines have lost seven aircraft in combat operations. The Marine Corps says the V-22 can better avoid being shot down because it can fly higher than the missiles that have been targeting helicopters. In addition, people on the ground cannot hear the aircraft approaching, giving insurgents less time to prepare to shoot as it flies at low altitude.

 

"I flown the V-22, and I have taken it and used it in a tactical manner," Castellaw said. "The ability to maneuver this aircraft is far in excess of what we have with the existing helicopters."

[Hawk MMS 0]

The history channel and a Modern marvels doc that showed the osprey, ch-47 and some other "mega movers" on as they called them. The osprey looks good. Seems they have figured it out.

[+EricJ 4,247]

Though the color scheme blows chunks IMO though, I liked the green/grey or just an overall grey, but hey, that decision was obviously farther than my pay grade.

[charlielima 328]

I'm no fan of the aircraft, just the concept. I never felt safe in a H-46 but the manual for it is written in blood. I'll bet there is a couple of seaknight drivers out there who are getting some pointers from thier grandfather who drove the same AC in the SEA conflict. At first the H-3 sea king was controversial and dangerous. It had alot of new technology that was being tested and proven by wrecks and funerals. Pushing hard in the fleet in Ronnie Reagans' navy seaking crews had a 90% survival rate in a crash, land or sea, day or night. I'm not sure if that includes HS-2's losses in Vietnam but those are good numbers. I hope the history of the Osprey is similar for the folks involved with that bird and aside from a lecture from thir sons or daughters for keeping thier grandkids up to late with thier war stories, I wish them nothing but success. :ph34r: CL

 

 

[+Jarhead1 27]

but what if a Marine General orders you to?

Semper Fi ...

 

 

Then i am SOL and gotta aye aye sir and about face

[Hawk MMS 0]

Time magazine has an article on the Osprey that is less than possitve. Saw it on the rack at the store and picked it up(10/08/07 issue). Usually don't read Time but, I made an exception. The cover alone tells their stance on the bird. Look at the cross shadow...

 

[+Zurawski 33]

Time magazine has an article on the Osprey that is less than possitve. Saw it on the rack at the store and picked it up(10/08/07 issue). Usually don't read Time but, I made an exception. The cover alone tells their stance on the bird. Look at the cross shadow...

 

 

This kind of "extreme" sensationalism really pisses me off...

 

"20 billion and 30 lives"...

 

Apparently they were not privvy to the expensive and dangerous teething process every fricking one of our millitary planes and helicopters has seen? Granted 30 lost lives is high, but lets remember that this is a transport vehical and the majority of these losses were troops who wee unlucky enough to go down with the bird. But to read the caption it would lead you to believe at least a dozen birds have gone down... when in reality it something like what four or five?

 

"It can't shoot straight"....

 

Well no s**t Sherlock... It's a freaking transport, not a gunship. So much for factual references eh?

 

I've had a couple email corespondences going with a couple Osprey pilots and and engeneer... and they are absolutely in love with the Osprey. I tend to believe these guys over a handful of buracrats in the back pockets of a few helicopter companies and a POS rag like TIME anyday.

 

But hey... I'm weird like that.

[JediMaster 451]

LOL, the C-17 can't shoot straight either!

[+Dave 2,322]

Zur is dead on, you know how many lives the F-104 took? How about the F-100? Cant shoot straight? Isnt that the pot calling the kettle black.....Time can't get its facts straight. This thing had some bugs but they tested the hell out of it. That is why you test it. It is too bad 30 Marines died but I can get you facts on other aircraft that would make your stomach turn. Morons.....thats the media for you.....

[Hawk MMS 0]

Well, you have all confirmed my line of thinking. I got in to it with a coworker today. I also used the F-104 as an example. How about the space shuttle and so many more.

[+Julhelm 266]

I'm just worried about survivability, since autorotation is a no-go, and the fact it carries less than the CH-46 it's replacing.

[DWCAce 19]

I bought the issue yesterday, but haven't been able to read it yet.

 

But concerning engine loss... It would depend on when it lost one or both engines. There is an interconnect for the engines, so that if one failed, one engine would power both rotors, though with reduced performance (with piston twins, with an engine out, you lose 50% of your power, but 80% of your performance). Now, I'm speculating that with an engine out (depending on density altitude, weights, etc.) that the a/c would be able to descend at a slower rate, not just plummet to the earth. Obviously, things would be a bit more complicated if the rotors were tilted. In the event of a dual failure, in 'airplane mode', the crew could feather the props (this presenting minimal resistance to airflow) and glide (probably at a higher speed, again, depending on load) to an of airport landing (crash landing). Just my two cents.

[eraser_tr 29]

IIRC the F-16 had a problem with its avionics borrowed from the tomahawk cruise missile, where on approach it would flip over and crash into the ground like a cruise missile is supposed to do.

 

Testing Sh#$ is dangerous, spaceships, cars, planes, helicopters, their cross species child thingy that is the osprey is no different. Though if those 30 marines lost have been since it went into service in september, then they might have a case against her. Doubt that though.

[TX3RN0BILL 3]

Well, one thing's for sure, it'll definitely be shown just how "survivable" this flying concoction will be, since insurgents will be shooting everything from shoulder-fired SAMs to rocks at it, I bet... and somehow, I don't think ten of them are as survivable as an A-10... heck, make that 100...

[arf16 0]

I bought the issue yesterday, but haven't been able to read it yet.

 

But concerning engine loss... It would depend on when it lost one or both engines. There is an interconnect for the engines, so that if one failed, one engine would power both rotors, though with reduced performance (with piston twins, with an engine out, you lose 50% of your power, but 80% of your performance). Now, I'm speculating that with an engine out (depending on density altitude, weights, etc.) that the a/c would be able to descend at a slower rate, not just plummet to the earth. Obviously, things would be a bit more complicated if the rotors were tilted. In the event of a dual failure, in 'airplane mode', the crew could feather the props (this presenting minimal resistance to airflow) and glide (probably at a higher speed, again, depending on load) to an of airport landing (crash landing). Just my two cents.

 

But if both engines go out while in chopper mode, you're screwed because Boeing didn't bother giving it auto-rotation capabilities. The V-22 would fall like a very expensive boulder.

[JediMaster 451]

The 30 deaths are over the life of the program, and the majority of those were in a single accident when fully loaded with troops.

 

How many have died in the "successful" UH-1?

[+Zurawski 33]

But if both engines go out while in chopper mode, you're screwed because Boeing didn't bother giving it auto-rotation capabilities. The V-22 would fall like a very expensive boulder.

 

Agreed and understandable concern... But ponder this ... when was the last time your heard of a CH-46 or a CH-53 autorotating to a survivable crash landing? Granted... I know they've happened but the reality is if your in hover and you loss power your SOL regardless of what your flying and it's in gods hands if you make it out alive.

[+Dave 2,322]

Agreed and understandable concern... But ponder this ... when was the last time your heard of a CH-46 or a CH-53 autorotating to a survivable crash landing? Granted... I know they've happened but the reality is if your in hover and you loss power your SOL regardless of what your flying and it's in gods hands if you make it out alive.

 

Further more, how many other aircraft fall under that same catagory of "if this goes now what" The arguement against the Osprey is a weak one at best.

[+SkippyBing 8]

I'd be interested in seeing any references about Boeing not giving it an auto-rotation capability as I'm not even sure that's possible. Auto-rotation is a function of how helicopters work it's just the engines aren't powering the rotors, airflow is. I have heard the rate of descent in auto is very high for a V-22, somewhere the wrong side of 5000' per minute due to the relatively small disc size, but that just makes the bit at the end more interesting.

 

As for single engine failure, with the interconnect it should be like any other twin engined helo. If you lose one in a low hover you cushion onto the ground using all the power you can get out of the remaining engine. If you're in a high hover you put the nose down and gain forward airspeed until you're above your safe single engine speed, which varies with weight and outside air temp. The advantage the V-22 has is that it can either make a running landing like a normal twin would single engine or rotate the discs forward and land like a conventional aircraft. If you look at the rotation of the discs it's designed so that the outer tips will shatter on impact with the ground and fly away from the airframe in that situation. There is often a height band between being able to cushion on and being able to fly away where if you lose an engine it's going to hurt but smart people stay out of that.

 

There may be other problems with operating the V-22 in Iraq etc. but I don't think engine failures is going to be one of them.