US Marine Corps expands tilt-rotor commitment

Jane's ^ | May 19 2003 | Craig Hoyle

[knighthawk]

In one of the strongest indications to date of the US Marine Corps' (USMC's) continued determination to field tilt-rotors and other transformational aircraft types, the service has announced plans to establish a 'centre of excellence' to oversee the future development of the MV-22 Osprey and emerging concepts such as a quad tilt-rotor transport and a canard rotor/wing escort.

The ethos behind the new centre is to ensure that mistakes made during the early development of the MV-22 tilt-rotor are not repeated during future programmes, said Lt Gen Michael Hough, the USMC's Deputy Commandant for Aviation. Identifying a shortfall in simulation and modelling expertise and poor system reliability as having hurt the project in its early days, he told a Royal Aeronautical Society lecture in London on 13 May: "We've fixed that [and] the V-22 is going remarkably well."

Highlighting the aircraft's vital role in transforming the speed and reach of future USMC operations, Gen Hough said "there's a lot of time to do it right second time" in getting the aircraft into service. Noting that current helicopter designs cannot match the MV-22's mandated performance capabilities and the marine corps' operational requirements out to 2040, he said: "If it doesn't work, we'll have to reinvent it."

Programme opponents argue that the Osprey platform must overcome a number of fundamental performance challenges before it can receive approval to enter series production around Fiscal Year 2005. These include, they say: the ability to self-deploy over a 2,100nm distance – a benchmark that is currently missed by some 400nm; the need to deliver an underslung load over a 50nm radius; and the meeting of established weight goals.

Looking beyond the MV-22, Gen Hough said a concept to develop a quad tilt-rotor transport has been proved sound during initial study activities. To have a maximum take-off weight of 100,000-lb (45,455kg), including a payload of more than 30,000-lb, this platform should fly more than 1,000km at speeds approaching 300kt, before landing in less than 1,000ft (305m). Bell Helicopter Textron is conducting an assessment of the design under an initial $400,000 study. The US Army has also shown interest in this concept as a potential solution for its future medium-lift transport aircraft requirement (JDW 3 July 2002). In a further development, Boeing's Dragonfly canard rotor/wing concept is believed to be receiving continued interest from the USMC to serve as a possible armed escort for the MV-22 and other platforms.

[knighthawk]

Ping

[IGOTMINE]

Ping

[alloysteel]

Wouldn't it be cheaper, easier and safer for the USMC to develop anti-gravity, than to continue to do R&D on a system that has been plagued with serious engineering problems?

[IGOTMINE]

The Beloved Corps rarely parts with a penny without a serious return on investment. Think about it....how many defense acquisition boondoggles did you hear that started with a Marine program?

Osprey development is going to cost in dollars and lives, but when the day comes that a MEU conducts a NEO 800 miles inland the debt will be paid.

[Gary Boldwater]

If the MV-22 is ready for deployment why is there a "center" being established for future development of the same aircraft? Shouldn't development efforts be tapering off?
The aircraft is progressing "remarkably well". Is that the same as progressing "according to plan" or "as promised" or "as the intended design"?
The words in the article were carefully chosen.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

If the Navy and Dick Cheney had been kept away from development, appropriations and other critical decisions the Osprey would have been in the fleet a long time ago.

[NYFriend]

There were no problems with the development of the CH-53's, and pilots were killed learning to fly them /sarcasm off.

[Gary Boldwater]

The aircraft is a new technology and it is bound to have unforseen problems. From the information that is public, it seems the Marines were doing a pretty good job, despite all the critics.
What I really find disturbing is this from the article:

Highlighting the aircraft's vital role in transforming the speed and reach of future USMC operations, Gen Hough said "there's a lot of time to do it right second time" in getting the aircraft into service. Noting that current helicopter designs cannot match the MV-22's mandated performance capabilities and the marine corps' operational requirements out to 2040, he said: "If it doesn't work, we'll have to reinvent it."

I'm not privy to confidential information on the project, but this paragraph is bigtime CYA. Why is this guy talking about "there's a lot of time to do it right the second time" and "if it doesn't work, we'll have to reinvent it." To me it sounds like they discovered a fatal flaw in the design concept and may have to push its deployment way out. This is not a very positive disclosure. I hope the person was quoted out of context, as that is a possibility and things are much better than depicted in this piece.

[Tacis]

They are also working on a new, very top secret targeting device. They hope to be able to have these things land on enemy positions when they fall out of the sky instead of just randomly cratering.

They still must carry large signs on the bottom side in both English and Spanish that say, "WARNING!! Stand clear!! Falling Debris!!"

The largest unforeseen cost associated with this program is the life insurance premiums for the pilots and folks under the flightpath.

[IGOTMINE]

53E did have teething troubles...transmission if I recall. And today the Marine's can't move ashore without them. Another example of paying up front for a long term capability.

[Gary Boldwater]

There's also a long list of prototype military aircraft that never made it into service. Drawing analogies is dangerous, it's better to judge each aircraft individually on its merits and shortcomings.

[Travis McGee]

We must test the Osprey for one year, using it exclusively to fly all Generals and Admirals between the Pentagon and Andrews AFB.

When they have accumulated a few thousand hours flying in the back of the Osprey, let the enlisted Marines ride in the back.

[Travis McGee]

They already conducted such 800 mile ops all the way into Afghanistan using helos and FARPs. No big deal.

[IGOTMINE]

True statement, but much slower ingress and egress. Inflight refueling between C130 and MV-22 much easier with higher speeds.

Question: What is the radius of the CH-53E vice the MV-22?

[Poohbah]

Travis, did you ever ride in an H-46 Sea Knight?

[Travis McGee]

Rode in em, jumped dropped or stepped out of all three exits, including the hell hole.

[Travis McGee]

No question its "numbers" are outstanding.

Fly around in it with YOUR family for a year, and then talk about ordering platoons of enlisted Marines to fly it.

I remember Yuma. Generals first!

[IGOTMINE]

1) My family isn't paid to "fly around", these professionals are hired for just that mission. They wouldn't be anywhere else.

2)I took my turn in the barrel flying in 53E's as a grunt in the late 80s-early 90's.

3)There is no gain without pain. We need to minimize risks, but we have to accept the costs, both human and financial, to realize the benefits promised by the MV-22.

I'll say it again. The Marine Corps has never screwed this nation on a defense acquistion. (Possible exception: The 1:7" rifling in the M16A2.) They wouldn't put a penny or risk a life on something that they don't need.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

The comparison between the Super Stallion and the Osprey is apples and oranges. The CH-53E is heavy lift and the MV-22 is medium lift. However, the Osprey will be replacing the CH-53D and the CH-46E. Combat radius for the three is:

CH-46E......75nm
CH-53D....210nm
MV-22......440nm