Posted on 11/17/2007 6:36:56 AM PST by A.A. Cunningham
The truth about the Osprey
By: COL. GLENN WALTERS - commentary
Unlike most of the V-22 critics, I have actually flown the MV-22 Osprey.
I flew hundreds of hours in this remarkable aircraft when I commanded the Marine Corps' test and evaluation squadron 2003-2006, and I am obliged to tell the truth.
The truth is the Osprey is the most thoroughly tested aircraft in the history of aviation for one fundamental reason: the safety of its passengers. Our nation expects that the military will use the best engineered, maintained and operated equipment available. Our troops deserve it. The Osprey we are flying today is just that.
Some critics say that we haven't flown the Osprey in the desert. Not true. My squadron flew in desert environments on multiple occasions totaling months of tests. The squadron now in Iraq completed several desert training periods prior to deploying. In fact, we just had another squadron of MV-22s in California and Arizona doing more of the same. Not only can the Ospreys fly in the desert, the aircraft's advanced technology makes it easier than in any other rotorcraft to land in brownout conditions.
Other critics point out that the MV-22 does not have a forward-firing weapon, but none puts this in context: no medium or heavy lift aircraft in the U.S. inventory has a forward-firing weapon. MV-22s flying in Iraq have ramp-mounted machine guns, which have become the standard on our aircraft in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, based on the threat. That, and the inherent capabilities of the aircraft (range, speed and altitude), give the MV-22 the ability to reduce susceptibility and vulnerability to many threats.
The MV-22 has limited visibility through the cabin windows, much like the CH-46 and the CH-53E, but what most critics do not know is that the troop commander, who rides in the back of the Osprey, has unparalleled situational awareness from the on-board precision navigation system with moving maps and a significant communications capability. These capabilities are not an option in existing Marine Corps aircraft.
The MV-22 is the most maneuverable medium lift assault support platform in the world. Conventional helicopters are limited to standard rotary wing tactics and airspeeds, while the MV-22 has the ability to fly like a turboprop airplane as well as a conventional helicopter. As an airplane, it can climb or descend at a significantly higher rate than any helicopter and transit at much higher speeds.
Vortex Ring State is a phenomenon experienced by all rotorcraft ---- not just the Osprey. While the MV-22 is the only aircraft with a warning system that alerts pilots to VRS conditions, it is the least susceptible to this phenomenon.
To argue whether the aircraft is worth the money spent is an unending debate. To the injured Marine or soldier whose life is saved due to the unparalleled capabilities of the MV-22, I would posit that the aircraft is worth every penny.
Col. Walters heads the Marine Corps' aviation plans section in the Pentagon and previously commanded Marine Tiltrotor Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron Twenty-Two (VMX-22).
Thank you for this thread.
Great article and pics. The disbelievers are hating to see this become a success.
ping
Awesome.
AVIATION PING
I guess it has something to do with having been a grunt under fire.
What is the max rate of descent, compared to rotor craft like Blackhawks?
HOw will this slow descent affect combat ops? Will the Osprey always be forced to land in cold, safe LZs?
And at its $$$ price, would we ever risk it near enemy fire anyway?
It took years, tons of R & D to make it work.
They did the same thing to the C-17 and the B-2. Unnamed sources saying it will never work, it is splattered all over ABC and Newsweek. Talk to people actually in programs like these when they are in progress, it is tough work to get a vehicle as complicated as these to production status.
Yes it was money that could have gone to "education" or "health care" but that is coming for the socialist on the other side of the ile.
Instead it went to an eeevvvvilllll war machine, aggh, they are aghast.
To bad. This is what makes us who we are, pay any price to advance technology and freedom. It is their anti-American bent, that has their panties in a wad.
If that is the case, build more of them...
One question that I have always wanted to ask. What if you can’t get the engines to tilt back up, how do you land? Is the aircraft too complicated?
More than double.
HOw will this slow descent affect combat ops?
A moot question since your premise is fatally flawed.
Will the Osprey always be forced to land in cold, safe LZs?
No.
And at its $$$ price, would we ever risk it near enemy fire anyway?
You're probably a proponent of leaving capital ships in port and B-2s, F-22s, F/A-18s, AV-8Bs, CH-53Es, et al, in their hangars.
I was up at Camp Lejeune last week on business and got to see these bad boys flying around. They are pretty impressive to see flying around.
The max rate of descent of an Osprey is twice as rapid as a Blackhawk? Really? Do you have figures?
I don’t know the rate of descent for a Blackhawk, but if memory serves me the CH-53D would see 2000fpm in a autorotation.
For hot LZs we would use a “buttonhook” approach, flying low altitude at 130kts or so until abeam the LZ. The collective was dumped, the aircraft was rolled into a 60 to 90% 180 degree turn, bleeding airspeed and placing you on “short final” for the LZ. This gave the minumum exposure to enemy fire.
As to cost, have you priced any other aircraft/tanks/ships/Comm gear, etc. that are at risk from enemy fire?
another beautiful yankee aircraft. (godspeed to those who ride in her.)
I’ve got books on my shelf written in the 70s showing that the F-15 is a complete waste of money.
“The Pentagon Wars” was written by a guy who objected to putting a radar or any provision for carrying bombs on the F-16...said it would destroy a great fighter and leave it useless. Tell that to the grunts getting CAS from 30K using modern targeting pods and JDAM...or anyone flying against it who doesn’t understand what Link 16 can do in an air-air engagement.
The C-17, now the backbone of our strategic airlift, was decried as a boondoggle while in development.
The folks complaining know nothing about the military, and have a horizon that usually extends as far as the next headline.
You lower the gear and make a roll-on landing. When the proprotors hit terra firma they broom-straw, as designed, not shatter. The question I have for you is what is the probability of a failure of the nacelle tilt mechanism and how many in flight failures of said mechanism have occurred since March of 1989?
Is the aircraft too complicated?
Compared to what?
I'm just wondering how it will perform if pushed into a close combat support role, and must make super fast vertical descents while the rockets are flying. How does it do in getting from above small arms and RPG altitude, to the deck, in a hostile under fire environment, compared to Blackhawks, Chinooks etc? If it must descend that last few 100 feet very slowly to avoid vortex ring state/ power settling dangers, will that expose it to greater time under fire?
I just want a side by side comparison of the final descent to LZ characteristics of both rotor and tilt rotor aircraft. That's all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.