V-22 Tweaks Eyed Despite Uncertainties

V-22 program representatives are looking for cost and weight savings as well as other improvements to bolster the case for the tiltrotor as the Pentagon weighs flight test data and other factors to determine whether or not to cancel the program.

Additionally, V-22 managers have been briefing a steady stream of top-level visitors on the aircraft's progress to try to address concerns. One of the visitors was Pentagon acquisition chief E.C. (Pete) Aldridge, a staunch critic of the V-22. Program representatives believe they have successfully made their case, but confess they don't know for certain whether Aldridge continues to oppose the tiltrotor. Other visitors included deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Stephen Cambone, director of Program Analysis and Evaluation.

Although the focus of the flight test program in recent weeks has been on resuming regular aircraft operations, managers are aware they have to address cost and weight questions in addition to safety of flight. The goal is to reduce the fly-away cost to $58 million from $68.4 million. But cost-cutting measures are being hindered because there is little up-front money to pay for engineering work that could lead to cheaper components later, V-22 officials complain. There is potential to cut costs using different materials in the aircraft's skin, combining panels or using different fasteners, but finding the money for those changes is proving difficult.

One measure intended to reduce the tiltrotor's price is the move of V-22 production at Boeing's Ridley Park, Pa., site into a new, more modern facility. But significant cost reductions probably won't materialize unless production rates increase. Congress and the Pentagon have limited the project to buying a "minimum sustainment rate" of 11 aircraft per year. Manufacturing experts are analyzing whether they could quickly ramp up production once the Pentagon OKs an increase. One option being looked at is doubling the production rate every year.

Weight control also has long been a challenge for the V-22. "So far we have not busted any of our threshold weight," said Michael J. Tkach, vice president for the Bell Boeing team. However, he said "we are close."

To address cost and weight, managers have assigned reduction targets to each element of the program. But Tkach said there can be trade-offs. For instance, one measure might cut weight substantially, but add some costs, which is acceptable as long as the cost can be shaved elsewhere.

One weight-cutting measure V-22 officials plan to implement is a new paint scheme, which would also reduce the tiltrotor's infrared signature, says Col. Dan Schultz, V-22 program manager. The new paint weighs about 60 lb. less and is expected to be more durable.

Schultz noted that the V-22's infrared signature is already much lower than other rotorcraft. However, because the heat signature is relatively low, the paint can drive it down even further, while on a helicopter with a larger IR signature the paint would hardly make a difference.

Engineers are also studying options to change the blade on the tiltrotor since the current design is a compromise between one designed as a rotor and a prop. Bell and Boeing each have candidate technologies that they say would improve performance in parts of the flight regime.

Boeing has explored a piezoelectrically reconfigurable blade that could be optimized depending on whether the tiltrotor is in aircraft or helicopter mode. Designers believe the technology could increase range and lift by 15-20%. A flying prototype isn't expected until 2006. If the promised improvements can be achieved, they would increase V-22 speed to about 300 kt.

Bell Helicopter Textron is working with a slightly more traditional design, by slotting the existing blade. The fixed slot would run about 25-50% of the blade span and is supposed to improve the boundary layer and increase lift coefficients. It borrows a technology that emerged from a NASA/Army study several years ago. The performance improvement would exist in hover mode, particularly at higher power settings. Engineers believe the cruise performance wouldn't be degraded, but that has yet to be proven. So far testing only of a small-scale power model has been conducted. Managers want to see both concepts mature before deciding whether to adopt one for the V-22.

Additionally, configuration changes are being explored to alert pilots when they are about to descend too quickly and are at risk of encountering vortex ring state, a power settling condition that led to one of two fatal V-22 crashes in 2000. Schultz said options include a seat shaker, aural alerts and color changes in the display to provide a visual cue of trouble ahead. While managers haven't resolved which of those to incorporate, they will be part of the Block A aircraft, the initial version that is to include all safety of flight fixes.

The V-22 test program has gradually expanded in recent months, after the lengthy hiatus following the two crashes in 2000. The latest milestone was first flight of the special ops CV- 22 earlier this month.

One challenge for flight testers is to demonstrate that the V-22 cannot only be flown safely, but that it is still operationally useful. Aldridge expressed concern that flying constraints could undermine the usefulness of the aircraft. But Schultz stressed the V-22 will provide at least the flexibility of current helicopters. In particular, pilots will be able to descend as quickly in the tiltrotor as in a helicopter without encountering vortex ring state.

But Schultz stressed the V-22 will provide at least the flexibility of current helicopters. In particular, pilots will be able to descend as quickly in the tiltrotor as in a helicopter without encountering vortex ring state.

Will provide.

Why doesn't it have that flexibility now? I well remember seeing ads for this piece of crap in the Marine Corps Gazette 20 years ago. But now it "will provide" more flexibility.

Boondoggle.

You say it will have a mini cannon? Is that going to be chin mounted? THAT feature was taken out --20 years ago-- due to costs. No matter what kind of other guns it has -- they can't fire forward through the arc of the props while they are in fixed wing mode, or what ever you call it.

As for endurance, I said that it didn't match either the Cobra or Harrier, and it doesn't. The V-22 has a longer range than either, at considerable expense to the tax payers -- longer than either the Cobra or Harrier, but tactically, it can't go anywhere without them.

This thing is a boondoggle, pork barrel, pie in the sky, piece of crap, oughta be cancelled at once, a loser.

Another incorrect statement. Cobras cannot refuel in flight while the MV-22 can and it has a greater combat radius than both the Harrier and Cobra.

I made no incorrect statements. The endurance of the three aircraft do not match.

The fact that the V-22 has a greater range is --immaterial-- because it must be escorted by one or the other of these aircraft -- although bag after bag of tax payer money has been thrown at this -- piece of crap -- to give it longer range.

Walt

Will provide.

Why doesn't it have that flexibility now? I well remember seeing ads for this piece of crap in the Marine Corps Gazette 20 years ago. But now it "will provide" more flexibility.

Boondoggle.

The problem is the inherent inaccuracy of airspeed indicators in the area of less than or equal to 50 KIAS. That is a common problem with most if not all airspeed indicators regardless of platform due to the low flow of air over the pitot tube. Ever notice the simple weather instruments on the nose of an AV-8B? A pretty simple solution to provide additional flexibility that wasn't incorporated on the AV-8A and could have prevented a lot of crashes. Start training pilots better and produce a more accurate NATOPS and you'll solve a lot of problems. You want to complain about why it's taken so long to get things working properly then direct it towards those responsible: politicians on the hill who have underfunded the program and those inept clowns at the Pentagon who have mismanaged the project. The poor management of the MV-22 would make an excellent topic for a thesis on how not to do things.

A .50 caliber gatling gun isn't a minigun. A minigun would be more along the lines of a SAW. The contract for the gatling gun, which is chin mounted, was signed in August-September of 2000. There are two doors aft of the wing that guns can be mounted in and a .50 can be mounted in the rear hatch, just as it frequently is on a CH-53.

but tactically, it can't go anywhere without them.

Not so regarding the Harrier. TOS times can be coordinated which is SOP for tactical ops. By the way, those two CH-53s that evacuated the embassy in Operation Eastern Exit flew ~500nm unescorted and provided their own suppressing fire once they reached the LZ.

I made no incorrect statements.

Yes, you've made several. As it descends at a constant rate, incorrect statement it is a sitting duck to enemy fire. It has no guns of its own, incorrect statement and can't fire forward even if it did. incorrect statement It's faster than the Cobras, and slower than the Harriers and has endurance matching neither. The top speed of a Harrier is indeed greater than the Osprey but the Harrier doesn't always fly with the throttle firewalled. Harriers can escort KC-130s and they can also escort MV-22s. Sea Stallions have top speeds that exceed Sea Knights, Hueys and Cobras but they conduct coordinated missions and insertions into hot LZs. In fact Sea Knights are frequently flown on insertions at around 100 KIAS due to airframe limits, so that means everyone else has to s-l-o-w down. When O'Grady was rescued in Bosnia, Harriers and Hornets provided CAP for the Cobras and Sea Stallions and their TOS was coordinated. Your arguments are factually incorrect and therefore moot.

The fact that the V-22 has a greater range is --immaterial-- because it must be escorted by one or the other of these aircraft

Your "must" is a false absolute as I already have proven. So that's one more incorrect statement.

The problem is the inherent inaccuracy of airspeed indicators in the area of less than or equal to 50 KIAS.

And these problems are just NOW being discovered? Gee, I thought helicopters had been around for, oh, 50 years or so. And how many people have been killed in the V-22?

That is a common problem with most if not all airspeed indicators regardless of platform due to the low flow of air over the pitot tube. Ever notice the simple weather instruments on the nose of an AV-8B? A pretty simple solution to provide additional flexibility that wasn't incorporated on the AV-8A and could have prevented a lot of crashes. Start training pilots better and produce a more accurate NATOPS and you'll solve a lot of problems.

At least two of the V-22 crashes involved VERY experience aircrew, did they not?

You want to complain about why it's taken so long to get things working properly then direct it towards those responsible: politicians on the hill who have underfunded the program and those inept clowns at the Pentagon who have mismanaged the project.

Absolute nonsense. This technology has been around 40 years.

The poor management of the MV-22 would make an excellent topic for a thesis on how not to do things.

The Congress has provided a mountain of money for this project. If it could be made to work, it would have been done by now.

but tactically, it can't go anywhere without them.

I made no incorrect statements.

Yes, you've made several. As it descends at a constant rate, incorrect statement it is a sitting duck to enemy fire. It has no guns of its own, incorrect statement and can't fire forward even if it did. incorrect statement It's faster than the Cobras, and slower than the Harriers and has endurance matching neither. The top speed of a Harrier is indeed greater than the Osprey but the Harrier doesn't always fly with the throttle firewalled. Harriers can escort KC-130s and they can also escort MV-22s. Sea Stallions have top speeds that exceed Sea Knights, Hueys and Cobras but they conduct coordinated missions and insertions into hot LZs. In fact Sea Knights are frequently flown on insertions at around 100 KIAS due to airframe limits, so that means everyone else has to s-l-o-w down. When O'Grady was rescued in Bosnia, Harriers and Hornets provided CAP for the Cobras and Sea Stallions and their TOS was coordinated. Your arguments are factually incorrect and therefore moot.

The fact that the V-22 has a greater range is --immaterial-- because it must be escorted by one or the other of these aircraft

Your "must" is a false absolute as I already have proven. So that's one more incorrect statement.

Cheney tried to kill the V-22 when he was SecDef as I recall. There have been many attempts to kill it because it is a piece of crap and only the worst aspects of the military industrial complex have kept it alive.

What sort of loiter time are Harriers going to have on a deep mission when they escort the V-22? How is their endurance at low speed? No, the fact that the V-22 has longer legs is moot. And the endurance of these three aircraft as I was-- very-- careful to state, does not match.

You are saying that this .50 cal gatling gun is not a mini gun. That is semantics. Whatever. I recall distinctly that the early '80s iteration of the V-22 had a chin mounted minigun penciled in. This was eliminated in that timeframe because it jacked up the cost. The article didn't state where this new gun was going to be located. Maybe they thought they could just add it again when SO MUCH money had been thrown at this piece of crap that it would have to be acquired no matter what.

So some CH-53's were able to provide their own suppression. Big deal. Are you saying that helo's don't need escorts? That would be radical.What was the threat? Do you want 20 or so Marines riding in the thing when the threat is not so benign and it can't be escorted, or if the escorts have only limited loiter time? The V-22 is faster than the Cobra, and it is slower than the Harrier. Nothing very radical about that. And I didn't discern any of this myself. I am paraphrasing some Marine aviators who made these comments years ago in the MCG.

Now, I see your posts a lot, and I respect them. But the V-22 is a boondoggle; it doesn't work, or perhaps better, it isn't suitable.

You talk about how long it takes "to get things working." There are a lot of good people dead from riding in this piece of junk. I don't find your arguments very persuasive.

Walt

In fact Sea Knights are frequently flown on insertions at around 100 KIAS due to airframe limits, so that means everyone else has to s-l-o-w down.

But when you talk about a spectrum of possible missions, the mismatch between the capabilities of the various aircraft is a drawback.

The V-22 has had tons of money thrown at it. It is faster than helo's. Great. It has longer legs than helo's. Wonderful.

When there is a threat where escorts are indicated, tt doesn't mean a thing. We are kind of talking apples and oranges here. My bottom line is that, given the capabilities of the Cobras and Harriers, it was irresponsible to spend so much money on THIS technology.

It's as if the project managers said, "We can make it faster than a helo! We can give it longer legs than a helo!"

"Great!"

Doesn't mean a thing when you need Cobras OR Harriers for escort. I bet it has a LOT more endurance than a Harrier. Useless for many missions. This project is a great example of everything that is wrong with military procurement. I think the taxpayers deserve a break. You apparently don't.

I have seen posts by pilots or FR in the last year or so that said the thing had to settle at a constant rate. I am not a pilot. Imagine my surprise. Now, for just a few armored cars more full of money (all in very large bills), it can be made as "flexible" as a helo in landing. Right, after 40 years, its going to work now. Got any bridges you need to sell?

Walt

What alternative is there to the V-22?

None right now, I wouldn't be surprised to find out. That would be a typical ploy in the MIC (military industrial complex). We HAVE to buy it, they tell the Congress. boo-hoo. There's no alternative. But take the money spent over time spent on this thing and you could have a whole fleet of shiny new CH-46 Sea Knights.

Sea Knights!

Okay, improved Sea Knights. Here's the deal. The V-22 technology sounds good on paper. Land/take off vertically. Fly at higher speeds than helo's. Better endurance than helo's.

Now add Cobras to the equation. Rats, the V-22 has to slow down to have them as escorts. But the V-22 has a longer range/endurance! It can fly MUCH further than a CH-46! Okay. Add Harriers to THAT equation. They don't have nearly the endurance. Okay, maybe you can refuel the Harriers; while you do that, the V-22's are burning up their extra fuel waiting. Oops. Or maybe the Harriers can take off later, and fly faster to the insertion zone and meet the V-22s as they arrive. That is bound to work, especially when clever bad guys are opposing you.

Well, ah. Maybe you could escort the V-22s early with Cobras and have the Harriers show up later, at the insertion zone. Doesn't sound like the KISS principle to me.

The whole thing was badly thought out from day one.

But the MIC was perfectly willing to throw your money at the problem, oh yes indeedy.

The one example that Smedleybutler gave about the CH-46's picking up O'Grady. That worked with CH-46's. Right? He seems to be making the case for the CH-46, not the V-22.

Walt

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.