splendid_splinter
HMLA flyer
they are completely rebuilt aircraft with hundreds of powerplant, rotor, tailblade, and avionics imporvements.. the airframe design is merely vietnam era.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
What's the deal with the MV-22?
- Thread starter BRM21o
- Start date
- Status
A helo is a much more demanding environment than an airplane. There are thousands more moving parts, most of which are life-limited. The airframe has to take continuous vibrations, not to mention the fact that a helo lands many more times than any airplane.
BTW, it really is a 'Nam-era bird. I've seen a couple of patches made with old beer cans once the floorboards are pulled up!
Phrogs phorever
BTW, it really is a 'Nam-era bird. I've seen a couple of patches made with old beer cans once the floorboards are pulled up!
Phrogs phorever
BRM21o
New Member
Osprey may win its war
Changes in aircraft's design are impressing some military critics
05/19/2003
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 ½ 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."
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dallas/business/stories/051903dnbusv22.61268.html
Comments?
Changes in aircraft's design are impressing some military critics
05/19/2003
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 ½ 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."
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dallas/business/stories/051903dnbusv22.61268.html
Comments?
turbospider2k
Registered User
My dad (former NA - SH-3H) works on the thing - employee for a subcontractor, company called Veridian. I've been around the thing for years. Did a report on it in the fifth grade - knew then that the majority of the accidents involving it were the result of human error - nothing more.
The thing has been doing great lately, things are REALLY starting to come together. Insofar as I know, all problems have been worked out (the majority having existed in the fbw comps.) I seriously doubt that we're looking at much more time before orders are filled. Two years, maybe, and I expect to see them on the flightlines.
Sidenote: Saw one fly over once. We were out fishing at Point No Point on the chesapeake (about 10 miles north of where the potomac empties) and the thing was out on the horizon, not too high off the ground (landing, maybe? Pax River is right next door). The rotors are HUGE. I'd seen pictures before, but they're damned impressive.
Also - rebuilt an electric guitar a few years ago. Guess where the wiring in it came from? (Not a cause of any accidents, I assure you.)
The thing has been doing great lately, things are REALLY starting to come together. Insofar as I know, all problems have been worked out (the majority having existed in the fbw comps.) I seriously doubt that we're looking at much more time before orders are filled. Two years, maybe, and I expect to see them on the flightlines.
Sidenote: Saw one fly over once. We were out fishing at Point No Point on the chesapeake (about 10 miles north of where the potomac empties) and the thing was out on the horizon, not too high off the ground (landing, maybe? Pax River is right next door). The rotors are HUGE. I'd seen pictures before, but they're damned impressive.
Also - rebuilt an electric guitar a few years ago. Guess where the wiring in it came from? (Not a cause of any accidents, I assure you.)
Curmudgeon
Registered User
Interesting article, but it has the flavor of being written as a favor to the manufacturer. The real positive quotes are from various people with a vested interest in the program. The military comments are more on the lines of "if it operates as spec'd, it will be real nice" (which has always been the case, the challenge is making the specs).
I think there is a very real chance (not huge, but real) that the V22 will be fatal to the entire Marine Corps. There are too many pressures to make the program move forward despite the problems. The politics of spreading jobs around lots of congressional districts was played to the nth degree, the enhanced capabilities are a real temptation to command staff, and too many senior people have tied their careers to it. There is a real chance that the Marines will be saddled with a turkey that will prove to be dangerous and unreliable, but which will be so central to the Corps that you can't easily separate the two. The old "there's no need for a separate Marine Corps" argument" will have a much better chance of succeeding then; especially when a budget/manpower crunch comes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT qualified to evaluate the V22, but US Military procurement has acquired a few turkeys over the years (remember nuclear AA missles?); the saving grace is that usually they haven't bet a whole service on them. If the Air Force screws up with the F-22, well, they have F-15s and F-16s and JSF to fall back on. I just have the bad feeling that too much of the pressure for the V22 comes for the wrong reasons.
I think there is a very real chance (not huge, but real) that the V22 will be fatal to the entire Marine Corps. There are too many pressures to make the program move forward despite the problems. The politics of spreading jobs around lots of congressional districts was played to the nth degree, the enhanced capabilities are a real temptation to command staff, and too many senior people have tied their careers to it. There is a real chance that the Marines will be saddled with a turkey that will prove to be dangerous and unreliable, but which will be so central to the Corps that you can't easily separate the two. The old "there's no need for a separate Marine Corps" argument" will have a much better chance of succeeding then; especially when a budget/manpower crunch comes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT qualified to evaluate the V22, but US Military procurement has acquired a few turkeys over the years (remember nuclear AA missles?); the saving grace is that usually they haven't bet a whole service on them. If the Air Force screws up with the F-22, well, they have F-15s and F-16s and JSF to fall back on. I just have the bad feeling that too much of the pressure for the V22 comes for the wrong reasons.
- Status