V22-Osprey to replace Chinook

[jango]

At the moment the USMC and other arms of the American armed forces are starting in process of bring the V22-Osprey into service. It seem to be set to replace the chinook and the USMC's Seaknight helicopters.

I think that in a few years that the Australian Defence Forces would do well to replace some of it helicopters mainly the Chincook with the Osprey as it would seem to be perfect for operations in Australia.

[Kilo Golf]

The Osprey is a good idea, but sucks.

--KG

[Shadowstorm]

Yeah, I'm same here.

[AlterMega]

The Osprey is a good idea, but sucks.

--KG

how is it a good idea if it sucks?

[Kilo Golf]

The idea of a "helo-plane" is good. It flies like a plane and lands like a helo, allowing it to fly faster that a helo and land in places a plane can't. The bad things are the downwash from the helo mode, what it is constructed of, and the size of it. Like I said earlier the hover is nice and stable though.

--KG

[Midav]

Chinook Downwash Moved Other Helos, Blew Off Roofs (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/CHIN070307.xml&headline=Chinook%20Downwash%20Moved%20Other%20Helos,%20Blew%20Off%20Roofs&channel=defense)

Seems to be a problem with choppers... not just the Osprey.

[nullterm]

The USMC is already in prep for a deployment to Iraq. I'll reserve judgment until it's had a chance to operate under real conditions. But it has gone through some teething problems.

[jango]

The idea of a "helo-plane" is good. It flies like a plane and lands like a helo, allowing it to fly faster that a helo and land in places a plane can't. The bad things are the downwash from the helo mode, what it is constructed of, and the size of it. Like I said earlier the hover is nice and stable though.

--KGwhy put it down when you have only stated what happens when you land the osprey. solution just wear gogles

[FROGFOOT-MKDN]

Main question should be: combat survival. Osprey is huge & those engines look flimsy, even with Kevlar around them. It will be a bullet magnet & since its deployment in Iraq in the next months, we will pretty soon see its combat performance.
As far as I know, the British Merlin helicopter had done extremelly well since deployed to Iraq.

[nullterm]

It does have a drive shaft between the two engines. So losing one engine doesn't mean turning into a crater. As long as the drive shaft and one engine works it should be able to make it down safely (I hope).

Not related to my comment, video of the V-22...

http://www.youtube.com/v/WeNdq_ObKuk

http://www.youtube.com/v/yaP5bfbwQe0

[szr]

V22-Osprey to replace Chinook

The V-22 is replacing only the CH-46 helicopters of the Marine Corps. There are no plans to replace anybody's Chinooks with them. The CH-46 is a medium-lift helicopter, and roughly so too is the V-22. The CH-47, on the other hand is a heavy-lift helicopter, like the CH-53, which the V-22 isn't a suitable replacement for.

[PaulClift]

The V-22 would not be able to carry the same underslung loads would it? I thought that was one big advantage of the CH-47.

[Abbadon the Despoiler]

anyway I m pretty curious towards its combat efficiency.

[Kilo Golf]

why put it down when you have only stated what happens when you land the osprey. solution just wear gogles

Did you read what I said? How is the solution of what it is made out of, or the size of it "wearing goggles"? Any who when one came to pick me up it almost destroyed a truck from the down wash.

--KG

[Seraphim]

You can use the Osprey to carry a large dome to encircle a city...

[kuttless]

The USMC is already in prep for a deployment to Iraq. I'll reserve judgment until it's had a chance to operate under real conditions. But it has gone through some teething problems.


the V22s deploy in september to iraq

[Durandal]

I am predicting one of two things happening:

A) Miserable failure in combat, sustaining high mechanical and combat losses. Marines end up hating it.

B) It gets shuffled off into the medium support role (the only one it can perform since its payload capacity blows and running slung loads defeats its purpose. It never really sees combat and gets cycled enough in rotations that no one every REALLY sees what an absolute maintenance whore it is.

Or maybe both, the 1st happen followed by the second as they try to justify to everyone the immense cost of the abortion it is.

Hate to predict bad things, but I can only see this as a negative and hope some marines don't have to suffer from the lesson to all those claiming its SOOOO Cool. :|

[Maxhawk8]

The V-22 wont ever permanently replace the CH-46 or Chinook, though i dont know of any plans for the ARMY to adopt it so for the mean time the Chinook is safe.

The thing hasn't even been really proven under a combat deployment and its so big and fast that it wont replace the Ch-46 and 47's. Its pointless to use the V-22 for anything except long-range transport because thats the only way that it makes sense to use it over the 46 or 47. For shorter range work V-22 just isn't practical.

[KillerBD]

The V-22 wont ever permanently replace the CH-46 or Chinook, though i dont know of any plans for the ARMY to adopt it so for the mean time the Chinook is safe.

The thing hasn't even been really proven under a combat deployment and its so big and fast that it wont replace the Ch-46 and 47's. Its pointless to use the V-22 for anything except long-range transport because thats the only way that it makes sense to use it over the 46 or 47. For shorter range work V-22 just isn't practical.

x2 well put. Long range speed is the only thing I think the V-22 has better than a helicopter. Otherwise I don't think any VTOL aircraft will ever replace good old fashoned helicopters, they just can't do everything a chopper can.

[Ratamacue]

x2 well put. Long range speed is the only thing I think the V-22 has better than a helicopter. Otherwise I don't think any VTOL aircraft will ever replace good old fashoned helicopters, they just can't do everything a chopper can.So what exactly can a helicopter like the CH-46 do that a tilt-rotor can't?

[0497]

Australia only has six Chinooks (they might buy more) so getting into the Osprey program is not really worth it. With the new MRH-90 that can fit 20 troops (seated) the V-22 doesn't offer that much more of an advantage. Also, the RAAF's in the market for the C-27J STOL.

Without the Chinooks the ADF would lose their heavy lift capability - they lost Chinooks once before and they didn't like it.

[zonk]

i dont think i will be comfortable doing tailgate jumps out the back of an osprey.......things arent exactly known to be the honda of the sky

[D-gin]

i dont think i will be comfortable doing tailgate jumps out the back of an osprey.......things arent exactly known to be the honda of the sky
Look at the bright side, You'll already have a chute on.

[zonk]

Look at the bright side, You'll already have a chute on.

there is no bright side when you jump out and the bird and its swirling rotors are coming down on top of you...i doubt i could slip away from a bird if it was falling directly over me

[nullterm]

It's true, if I was going to be an Osprey, I'd rather be the guy with the parachute.

[D-gin]

there is no bright side when you jump out and the bird and its swirling rotors are coming down on top of you...i doubt i could slip away from a bird if it was falling directly over me

I don't think you need to worry, I haven't herd anything about the Army looking back into the Osprey since they canceled there order whey back.

[Little J]

So what exactly can a helicopter like the CH-46 do that a tilt-rotor can't?


X2


Why are people on this thread putting the V-22 in the same category as the Ch-47? It was never designed to do the Chinooks work.



As for the doom mongers,
Wouldn't it be clever to wait and see what a new product can do before chastising it? A lot of bad press surrounds this aircraft because of its earlier design (R.I.P. to all those died getting it to work), but how many of the flaws that caused those accidents are still in the current evolution?

[Ratamacue]

Why are people on this thread putting the V-22 in the same category as the Ch-47? It was never designed to do the Chinooks work.

As for the doom mongers,
Wouldn't it be clever to wait and see what a new product can do before chastising it? A lot of bad press surrounds this aircraft because of its earlier design (R.I.P. to all those died getting it to work), but how many of the flaws that caused those accidents are still in the current evolution?The reason that people are comparing the V-22 to the Chinook is because the thread starter posted false information, and the people who read it don't bother to read the rest of the thread before replying. Par for the course on this forum.

As for the flaws that caused accidents, the hydraulic problems that caused the crashes in 1992 and December 2000 have long since been identified and corrected. The April 2000 crash was caused by pilot error when the aircraft was descended far too quickly at too low a speed and entered a vortex ring state (essentially, the rotors trying to generate lift within their own propwash). VRS is a problem inherent to all rotary-wing aircraft, and testing after the accident has shown that not only is the V-22 less susceptible to it, but it is more easily identified and corrected by the pilots. In other words, this also means that the Osprey is able to descend at faster rates when at low speed than most helicopters.

I don't have any doubts about the safety of the Osprey, at least in a controlled environment. Its deployment in Iraq is what will make or break the program by determining its usefulness in an operational setting, as well as harsh environments. People need to give it a chance to prove itself. Unfortunately, the aircraft has been so demonized in the media and by outdated/false information that that's probably not possible. Honestly, I'd much rather hear what V-22 crews think about the aircraft and whether they think it's ready for deployment.

[Durandal]

So what exactly can a helicopter like the CH-46 do that a tilt-rotor can't?

Cost a crap load less to manufacture and keep flying.

p-)

[Ratamacue]

Cost a crap load less to manufacture and keep flying.Funny, and that's definitely true as far as the unit cost is concerned (although I'm not aware of the aircraft's maintenance costs). But how about we answer the question as it was intended? What performance capabilities exist in a medium-lift helicopter that are lacking in the V-22?

[Durandal]

Ok...

It fails the JORD and USSOCOM requirement for rope ladder as well as air assualt/rope times because of the increased height required to properly avoid debris. Too much downwash.

Higher susceptibility to particulate especially...wait for it...sand (this in part due to downwash).

Not nearly as good as CSAR as a helo.

Ok, there are some.

THe point is not wether its as good as a helo (its not) or as a good as a plane (its not) but if the combined gactors give it some sort of REAL world edge that justifies its extreme per unit cost.

I'll argue that the 2 most important edges over a helo, range and cruising speed (assuming no slung load and no max load or adverse conditions) do not, in fact justify the cost.

I've been arguing that for the past three years that we could put the entire abortion on hold (whats another year or three after taking almost 3 decades) we should be looking at a canard rotorwing that is scaleable (using the same design for a micro UAV or a superlift replacement for the C5).

That would be a leap forward, rather than a massively limited design.

[Bohemoth]

I recently saw a photo with quite a number of Chinooks neatly lined up on the deck of an Aircraft carrier. With their Rotor blades folded together they could be stacked pretty tight. Next to them were one or two Ospreys that have just landed. Seeing their long wingspan and the huge rotors I thought if they replace the Chinooks with Ospreys, they won't be able to have the same number of them on the carrier. :-)

Here is the photo:
http://www.preattach.com/out.php/i1180_2.jpg

[nullterm]

The wings rotate for storage:

http://www.aircraftguru.com/aircraft-photos/V-22_Osprey_compact_storage_configuration.jpg

[GazB]

Those who claim the V-22 will be vulnerable to ground fire ignore the fact that large helos are also vulnerable to ground fire.

Just hope the US remembers what the V-22 is and not try to use it for something it is no good for.

Wonder if they will make a gunship version as the Cobra wont be able to keep up with these.

As planes they wont be able to fly nap of earth and use ground features to hide them from unwanted attention.

I don't really like the V-22 very much... its unbalanced design reminds me of a bicycle... you have to keep pedalling or it will fall over like design.

The V-44 on the other hand in my opinion looks much better, with a very similar layout but with four engines and four bit rotors in a two at the front and two at the back layout that looked much better balanced.

[nullterm]

Helos are vulnerable, but still can try to autorotate down to the ground. I don't know if the V-22 has a similar emergency procedure or not.

[AlphaOneSix]

I recently saw a photo with quite a number of Chinooks neatly lined up on the deck of an Aircraft carrier.

Well theres is one problem. Those aren't Chinooks. It's been mentioned before, but the Osprey is only meant to replace the CH-46 for the Marines, not the CH-47 for the Army. The -46 and the -47 are completely different aircraft.


Helos are vulnerable, but still can try to autorotate down to the ground. I don't know if the V-22 has a similar emergency procedure or not.

It can autorotate just like a regular helicopter.

[nullterm]

It can autorotate just like a regular helicopter.

That's good. If it has enough forward speed in airplane configuration, can it glide safely down?

[Durandal]

It can autorotate just like a regular helicopter.

No it can't.

The engines ARE interconnected though, so if there is a single engine failure, it can still run on one, and because it is a lifting body, unlike helicopter, in-theory it will glide if it has a dual engine failure (though I think it'll resemble more of a fall than a glide).

[Bohemoth]

The wings rotate for storage:

{IMAGE}
rofl What is not rotatable on the Osprey? Sure it's not a Transformer?
Thanks for clarifying this, fully answers my question.

[Ratamacue]

THe point is not wether its as good as a helo (its not) or as a good as a plane (its not) but if the combined gactors give it some sort of REAL world edge that justifies its extreme per unit cost.

I'll argue that the 2 most important edges over a helo, range and cruising speed (assuming no slung load and no max load or adverse conditions) do not, in fact justify the cost.

I've been arguing that for the past three years that we could put the entire abortion on hold (whats another year or three after taking almost 3 decades) we should be looking at a canard rotorwing that is scaleable (using the same design for a micro UAV or a superlift replacement for the C5).

That would be a leap forward, rather than a massively limited design.Certainly good points that wasn't entirely aware of. Still, I'm going to remain optimistic until it gets some experience in its deployment. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and hope that I'm vindicated. p-)

[AlphaOneSix]

No it can't.

Woops, this is true, the Osprey can't do traditional autorotations. I was mistaken.

[BrianT]

Just curious, but how many of you guys have rode in helicopters as a way for infil on an actual combat mission? I don't know a great deal about helicopters, but when it takes over an hour just to fly somewhere, and then you're doing an offset landing, so you still have to walk 3k to hit your objective, I damn wish that helicopter would fly faster. Especially when you're piled up on a 47 and somehow you got stuck right by the ****ing FO or RTO and his radio is burning your damn nuts.

[SOG]

i think it will do great for what it was made to do. period.

some upgrades of course as all new vehicles get. no big deal. i remember hearing very similar in vein comments about the striker. too big for transport with cages wired on, too expensive, too little armor, not enough firepower. all this only a few years ago. hows it doin?


V-22 Osprey Medium-Lift, Multi-mission, Tilt-Rotor Aircraft, USA

The V-22 Osprey is a joint-service, medium-lift, multi-mission tilt-rotor aircraft developed by Boeing and Bell Helicopters. Boeing is responsible for the fuselage, landing gear, avionics, electrical and hydraulic systems, performance and flying qualities. Bell Helicopter Textron is responsible for the wing and nacelle, propulsion, rotor, empennage (complete tail system), ramp, overwing fairing and the dynamics.
"The nacelles rotate 90° forward once airborne, converting the aircraft into a turboprop aircraft."

The aircraft operates as a helicopter when taking off and landing vertically. The nacelles rotate 90° forward once airborne, converting the aircraft into a turboprop aircraft.

The aircraft can provide VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) with a payload of 24 troops, or 6,000lb of cargo at 430nm combat range, or VTOL with a payload of 8,300lb of cargo for a range of 220nm. The helicopter is self-deployable worldwide, with a ferry range over 2,100nm. Normal operating range is up to 1,100nm.

The tilt-rotor aircraft is available in three configurations: the Combat Assault and Assault Support MV-22 for the US Marine Corps and the US Army; the long-range Special Operations CV-22 for US Special Operations Command (US SOCOM); and the US Navy HV-22, for combat search and rescue, special warfare and fleet logistic support.

The first of four LRIP (Low-Rate Initial Production) MV-22 models completed operation and evaluation in August 2000. Following an aircrash in December 2000, a number of upgrades have been implemented including redesign of hydraulics and wiring in the nacelles and improved flight control software. A two-year flight test program began in May 2002 and a second OP/EVAL phase began in March 2005. USAF CV-22 resumed flight testing in September 2002. The first CV-22 was delivered to the USAF in October 2005.

A further 11 LRIP aircraft (nine MV-22 and two CV-22) were ordered in May 2003, 11 (eight MV-22 and three CV-22) in February 2004 and 11 (nine MV-22 and two CV-22) in January 2005.

The V-22 was approved for full-rate production in September 2005. Initial operating capability is planned for 2007 for the MV-22 and 2009 for the CV-22. 360 MV-22 (to replace CH-46 Sea Knight) and 50 CV-22 (to replace MH-53J Pave Low helicopters) are required.

In July 2006, two MV-22 Ospreys completed flights crossing the Atlantic to take part in the flying display at the Farnborough International Airshow.

DESIGN

The V-22 is fully shipboard compatible, with the world's first complete blade fold and wing stowage system. It is able to operate off all US Navy L-class amphibious ships, the LHA/LHD assault carriers, and can be stowed on full-size CV/CVN carriers. For stowage, the wings are rotated to lie above and parallel to the fuselage to create a compact rectangular volume.
"The V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft is fully shipboard compatible."

The automatic wing and rotor folding sequence, which can be completed in 90 seconds in a 60kt wind, is as follows: the aircraft lands in helicopter mode; the two outboard blades of each rotor are folded inboard; the nacelles are rotated forward to cruise mode; and the wings are rotated by 90° clockwise.

COCKPIT

The flight crew have a pilot's night-vision system and a Honeywell integrated helmet display. The cockpit is equipped with six night-vision goggle compatible displays.

The standby altitude indicator and the standby flight display are supplied by Smiths Industries. The cabin and the cockpit are NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical warfare) protected with a positive pressure filtered air system.

GUN

The aircraft will be equipped with a 12.7mm turreted gun system, which will be supplied by General Dynamics.

SENSORS

The US Air Force and US Navy variants are equipped with a Raytheon AN/APQ-186 terrain-following, multi-mode radar. The helicopter night-vision system is the Raytheon AN/AAQ-16 (V-22) FLIR, which is mounted on the nose. This system contains a 3-5 micron indium antimonide staring focal plane array.

COUNTERMEASURES

The aircraft's electronic warfare suite includes the ATK AN/AAR-47 missile warning system, which consists of four electro-optic sensors with photomultipliers, a signal processing unit and a cockpit display.
"The aircraft will be equipped with a 12.7mm turreted gun system."

The aircraft is also equipped with a radar and infrared threat warning system and chaff and flare dispensers with 60 rounds of dispensables. The CV-22 will have the Suite of Integrated Radio Frequency Measures (SIRFC), being developed by ITT Avionics.

ENGINES

The aircraft is powered by two Rolls-RoyceT406-AD-400 turboshaft engines rated at 4,400kW maximum continuous power. The engines are fitted with Full-Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) supplied by Lucas Aerospace, backup analog electronic control system, and fire protection system from Systron Donner.

A transmission interconnect shaft provides single-engine operation. The thermal signature of the aircraft is minimised with an AiResearch infrared emission suppression unit, installed on the nacelles near the engine exhaust.

The entire rotor, transmission and engine nacelles tilt through 90° in forward rotation and are directed forwards for forward flight, and through 7° 30' in aft rotation for vertical take-off and landing.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/osprey/

i dont know, doesnt sound like a pushover to me.

i guess well see. thats some pretty wide adoption for being a peice of cack.

i think it will be of good service to us.

[Durandal]

Just curious, but how many of you guys have rode in helicopters as a way for infil on an actual combat mission? I don't know a great deal about helicopters, but when it takes over an hour just to fly somewhere, and then you're doing an offset landing, so you still have to walk 3k to hit your objective, I damn wish that helicopter would fly faster. Especially when you're piled up on a 47 and somehow you got stuck right by the ****ing FO or RTO and his radio is burning your damn nuts.

Hehehe not going to change anything. You'll just be deploying from further out AND THEN hiking the 3k. From what I have heard, the interior noise is still pretty damn crappy.

[AlphaOneSix]

Just curious, but how many of you guys have rode in helicopters as a way for infil on an actual combat mission?

Does crew chief count? Hey, at least I don't have to walk.

[BrianT]

Does crew chief count? Hey, at least I don't have to walk.
Yeah last time I rode in a 47, the 160th guys were looking pretty damn comfortable sitting in their chairs.

[E__WOK]

Correct me if I wrong but wasn't the last CH-46 built in 1972? They are pratically worn out.

[TheOpposition]

Once I saw Tom Clancy's Endwar trailer I was all for the Osprey :)

[martinexsquaddie]

I'm British whats a helicopter? :):(
part of an "air mobile" battalion army speak for your walking miles and miles and miles

[santana]

Video of the V-22

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsrrYwgWNxk

[LaoSexMachine]

I will miss the 46s

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h29/eh1656/Portland166.jpg

[Johnny_H02]

So if it went into operations in September and we haven't heard of any major failures is it too early now to call it a success?

[Ratamacue]

So if it went into operations in September and we haven't heard of any major failures is it too early now to call it a success?I'd say it's too early to say anything in either direction. An aircraft needs more than reliability to be considered a success. The Osprey needs to test out and validate the advantages and new tactics associated with tiltrotors in an operational setting. From what I gather, VMM-263's deployment has not been especially rigorous and probably hasn't involved much in the way of combat operations. What I would say, however, is that if the V-22 has stood up to the environmental conditions and operational tempo of Iraq, the aircraft is worth continuing to pursue.

[Johnny_H02]

Thanks for the response. I thought it might be too early but a few months in theatre without any major malfunctions seems pretty positive. It will be interesting to see how this aircraft pans out in the next few years.

[AC434]

Correct me if I wrong but wasn't the last CH-46 built in 1972? They are pratically worn out.

According to Wikipedia the last CH-46 was completed in 1971, who or what country that helo went to it didn't say.

Oh the memories, steak dinner the night before, "Flight of the Valkries" in the hanger deck, weapon down, circling for what it seams for hours, watching Marines getting sick, trying not to slip/fall down the hydralic fuel coated ramp, the in-famous defensive circle around the Sea Knight. At least I'm not in an Amtrack....

You know I had thoughts between all the noise that this helicopter was probably 20-25 years older than I was and that was 1985.

[Butler47]

Wow, what everyone here doesn't know about military aviation could fill volumes. The osprey doesn't "replace" the Chinook. The Chinook has a weight and a mile range and it fills a niche. The osprey has more range, and less load. Actually when it is carrying a slingload it is about like a Blackhawk. The Chinook will be around when we are all dead and gone and a little research will prove that. You'll have to meet somebody at Aviation and Missle Command at Redstone to learn.

The rotor wash arguments are all moot. When an empty chinook lands there isn't much downwash, when a 50,000 pounder (or 54,000 pounder as the CSAR will be when fully laden..look out) just as a fully loaded H-53 has insane amounts. It is the lift being generated, not the particular airframe. If you have seen heavy Ospreys in Iraq...it is pretty crazy in the dust. Actually, because the Chinook cockpit is so far forward, it is usually very easy to avoid brownout. And the new hover holds are so good, this will be a thing of the past (ala CH-47F). Do some research fellas...

[James]

Thank you for bringing back this thread to show us how much knowledge you have. I bet you're one cool dude.

[Butler47]

Not cool dude, just a grouchy old Chinook pilot who is sick of people who's knowledge of military hardware comes from comic books.

God Bless the Marine Corps for keeping them going as long as they have, but the -46s have been junk for along time. I've worked with them in the sandbox and they keep them going by hard work and huevos...they are still junk machines.

The Chinook will outlive the Osprey and if the Air Force picks the Sikorsky or the Eurocopter (lockheed) then the Chinook will outlast any of those...It might be a CH-47W or a CH-47ZZ but it will still be a Chinook. There are some designs (DC-3, B-52, SR-71, & CH-47) that were ahead of there time by 50 years when they were experimental.

As far as reviving old posts...if there is crap information out there, ya fight it where ya find it....

[James]

Not cool dude, just a grouchy old Chinook pilot who is sick of people who's knowledge of military hardware comes from comic books.

Well I can't fault you for that. ;)


God Bless the Marine Corps for keeping them going as long as they have, but the -46s have been junk for along time. I've worked with them in the sandbox and they keep them going by hard work and huevos...they are still junk machines.

I was in the USMC, and we half joked that we should be worried in a 46 if it wasn't leaking hydraulic fluid, because that meant it was out.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

..., ya fight it where ya find it....

If that's the case you'd better pace yourself. You'll be busy around here.

Anyway, welcome.

[Zoomie]

I was in the USMC, and we half joked that we should be worried in a 46 if it wasn't leaking hydraulic fluid, because that meant it was out.

We said the same thing about our Hueys out at Vandenberg. p-)