Navy special operations command version of the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft

"Bill Silvey" wrote in message m...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om

I guess the lesson here is supposed to be that if there are
developmental problems, the program should be immediately killed, huh
Bill? One wonders how many aircraft that kind of thinking would have
left us with in the past...

Brooks

Kevin, we've been around this before. It's *twenty years on* and the thing
still hasn't shown much capability beyond filling up body bags.

So you say. Just this past week the National Guard expressed interest
in the MV-22 (for the homeland defense role; they like the idea of
being able to load up one of their WMD teams and go straight to the
objective at sppeds and ranges exceeding helo capabilities, and the
potential it has for the firefighting role, etc.). The USAF wants to
continue with the CV-22. The USMC wants to continue with the MV-22.
And Bell has teamed with Agusta to market the AB 609 civil tilt rotor,
with some seventy reserved advance orders (from operators around the
world) on the books. So, I guess your claim that this is a deadend
program trumps all of these disparate groups? What do you know that
*all* of them are apparently ignorant of? Bill, at some point you have
to figure that all of these different groups have to have some idea of
what is what.

I just
think it's a bad project. And bad projects themselves aren't the problem;
The M247 DIVAD was crap, too, but it (thankfully) didn't kill bunches of
people when stuff went wrong with it.

leaving some aircraft in the past, I don't think you could qualitatively
argue the difference between say, a last-generation prop fighter like the
Mustang or Spitfire and first-generation jets. There was an obvious and
serious tactical advantage to jets. They were, no pun intended, taking off.
Was a P-80 that much better than a P51? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it was
evident that the evolutionary track for jets was the way to go.

I just don't see what possible purpose or advantage building the Osprey has
over building (not refitting or rebuilding or re-engineering) new Helos has.
The helo is proven technology, and it continues to get better.

It is limited interms of its upper speed limits, for one thing. You
can make a pretty fast helo, but it will tend to lack legs and
carrying capacity; the tilt rotor blends the VTOL capability of the
helo with the cruise capabilities of a fixed wing, meaning greater
operational latitude. How many current helos can fly a 500 mile
insertion mission at between 230-240 knots? Answer--none.

Then there is deployability--the MV-22 offers a 2500 naut mile ferry
range, and compared to the current CH-46, cuts the number of required
supporting strategic airlift sorties for a squadron deployment from,
for the 46, four C-5 sorties *and* two C-141 sorties, to two C-141
sorties for the MV-22.

And finally versatility:

"…the MV-22 would be compatible for conducting aerial refuel/tanker
support to both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...97/Bullard.htm

How many helos can do *that*?


Let me ask you this, Kevin, and I'm not being sarcastic when I ask: would
you, knowing what we know about the Osprey and it's development issues, take
a hop in one if the opportunity presented itself? Say, tomorrow?

Yep. I had three of them pass directly overhead my position a couple
of years back (very different noise they make--sort of
"whoosh-whoosh-whoosh" with their turbine sound tossed into the mix).
Believe it or not, not *one* of those critters fell on my poor little
pointy head. I'd much rather jump onboard a USMC crewed MV-22 as refly
that one commuter airflight (on a Bandierante, IIRC) where I asked the
pilot upon deplaning if that little access panel thingie on the port
nacelle was supposed to be flapping throughout the flight (no, it was
not one of those little flapper inlets--the guy asked me to show him
and said, "We gotta get somebody to fix that...").

Brooks


Understand I respect your opinion and I'm not trying to incite anything.

"Bill Silvey" wrote in message
...

leaving some aircraft in the past, I don't think you could
qualitatively
argue the difference between say, a last-generation prop fighter like the
Mustang or Spitfire and first-generation jets. There was an obvious and
serious tactical advantage to jets. They were, no pun intended, taking
off.
Was a P-80 that much better than a P51? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it was
evident that the evolutionary track for jets was the way to go.

As is the tilt rotor: much like the jet, it is just inherently faster than
its predecessor. Unlike the jet, it's also more efficient at cruise for
better range.

I just don't see what possible purpose or advantage building the Osprey
has
over building (not refitting or rebuilding or re-engineering) new Helos
has.
The helo is proven technology, and it continues to get better.

Speed & range.

Let me ask you this, Kevin, and I'm not being sarcastic when I ask: would
you, knowing what we know about the Osprey and it's development issues,
take
a hop in one if the opportunity presented itself? Say, tomorrow?

I'm not Kevin, but I'ld take the ride.

In article , John Keeney
writes
As is the tilt rotor: much like the jet, it is just inherently faster than
its predecessor.

There are other ways of achieving fast VTOL, tilt-rotor is not the only
solution. Bell/Boeing have this ambition that their baby using their
technology is going to work, no matter how much it costs or how long it
takes. It seems to me they have the US taxpayers over a barrel, however
much it's costs, throwing good money after bad.

Unlike the jet, it's also more efficient at cruise for
better range.

On the other hand, the jet didn't take 20 years of development with
hundreds of millions of dollars spent, still without making it to
operational status. There comes a point when you have to put it out of
its misery and look for something else.

--
John

In article , Kevin
Brooks writes
I guess the lesson here is supposed to be that if there are
developmental problems, the program should be immediately killed, huh
Bill? One wonders how many aircraft that kind of thinking would have
left us with in the past...

Immediately killed is one thing, struggling on for twenty years is quite
another. It seems to me it is time to either put it into service (and
accept the losses that will occur) or scrap the idea. Even if all the
problems are fixed, there will still be losses, will the first take it
out of service for another 5 years?

If it so revolutionary for the Marines requirements, then the risk is
probably worth taking anyway if it reduces 'risk' from enemy action.

--
John

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 22:20:53 +0100, John Halliwell
wrote:

In article , John Keeney
writes
As is the tilt rotor: much like the jet, it is just inherently faster than
its predecessor.

There are other ways of achieving fast VTOL, tilt-rotor is not the only
solution. Bell/Boeing have this ambition that their baby using their
technology is going to work, no matter how much it costs or how long it
takes. It seems to me they have the US taxpayers over a barrel, however
much it's costs, throwing good money after bad.

Unlike the jet, it's also more efficient at cruise for
better range.

On the other hand, the jet didn't take 20 years of development with
hundreds of millions of dollars spent, still without making it to
operational status. There comes a point when you have to put it out of
its misery and look for something else.

Hmm. Whittle's first patent was 1930 (after he'd been working on jets
for a while), and the first successful jet aircraft arrived in what
'44? So 14 years, and jets were hardly reliable at that point, and not
for many years afterwards.

Peter Kemp
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

In article ,
John Halliwell wrote:

In article , John Keeney
writes
As is the tilt rotor: much like the jet, it is just inherently faster than
its predecessor.

There are other ways of achieving fast VTOL, tilt-rotor is not the only
solution.

Name one that doesn't suck fuel like crazy.

On the other hand, the jet didn't take 20 years of development with
hundreds of millions of dollars spent, still without making it to
operational status.

You mean like the Eurofighter? They started development of the
Eurofighter in 1983, three years *before* we started development on the
Osprey in 1986... and they're just getting the plane into service.

Overall, the "troubled" development of the Osprey is going to take less
time than the fairly-tame design goals of the Eurofighter.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article , Peter Kemp
peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@?.? writes
Hmm. Whittle's first patent was 1930 (after he'd been working on jets
for a while), and the first successful jet aircraft arrived in what
'44? So 14 years, and jets were hardly reliable at that point, and not
for many years afterwards.

If you're starting from scratch, Bell have been trying to get the tilt
rotor to work for 30-40 years with little to show for it.

--
John

In article , Chad Irby
writes
Name one that doesn't suck fuel like crazy.

The Rotordyne wasn't a bad start, with an extra 20 years development who
knows where it might be. There are likely to be other technologies which
could do a similar or better job. If Bell/Boeing could see beyond the
tilt rotor, better opportunities might develop faster.

On the other hand, the jet didn't take 20 years of development with
hundreds of millions of dollars spent, still without making it to
operational status.

You mean like the Eurofighter? They started development of the
Eurofighter in 1983, three years *before* we started development on the
Osprey in 1986... and they're just getting the plane into service.

In no way would I try to defend the Eurofighter development. Growing up
in my part of the world (then surrounded by three BAe sites), EFA as it
was, was very big news. I grew up with it, saw EFA flying a decade ago
and see Typhoon flying almost every day at the moment. It has taken far
too long and was very nearly cancelled on at least one occasion, a lot
being down to political manoeuvring by various countries in the
consortium.

Overall, the "troubled" development of the Osprey is going to take less
time than the fairly-tame design goals of the Eurofighter.

Time will tell on that one.

--
John

In article ,
Peter Kemp peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom writes:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 22:20:53 +0100, John Halliwell
wrote:

In article , John Keeney
writes
As is the tilt rotor: much like the jet, it is just inherently faster than
its predecessor.

There are other ways of achieving fast VTOL, tilt-rotor is not the only
solution. Bell/Boeing have this ambition that their baby using their
technology is going to work, no matter how much it costs or how long it
takes. It seems to me they have the US taxpayers over a barrel, however
much it's costs, throwing good money after bad.

Unlike the jet, it's also more efficient at cruise for
better range.

On the other hand, the jet didn't take 20 years of development with
hundreds of millions of dollars spent, still without making it to
operational status. There comes a point when you have to put it out of
its misery and look for something else.

Hmm. Whittle's first patent was 1930 (after he'd been working on jets
for a while), and the first successful jet aircraft arrived in what
'44? So 14 years, and jets were hardly reliable at that point, and not
for many years afterwards.

And the first successful jet airliners didn't enter service until
1958. (Comet IV and Boeing 707). As for jets being "safe" and
"proven: before then, hop on over to teh USAF Safety Office's website
& look though both the total loss number and loss rate data for, say,
the F-84, the F-86, the F-100, and the B-47. Safe they certainly
weren't.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

John Halliwell wrote in message ...
In article , Kevin
Brooks writes
I guess the lesson here is supposed to be that if there are
developmental problems, the program should be immediately killed, huh
Bill? One wonders how many aircraft that kind of thinking would have
left us with in the past...

Immediately killed is one thing, struggling on for twenty years is quite
another. It seems to me it is time to either put it into service (and
accept the losses that will occur) or scrap the idea. Even if all the
problems are fixed, there will still be losses, will the first take it
out of service for another 5 years?

The development process has indeed been tedious. IMO, we should have
procured some new interim helos while we continued the R&D effort, but
that would now probably be not worth the cost and trouble. But the
fact is that the military still actively wants and believes in the
program (rarely do disparate agencies like the USMC, USAF, ARNG, and
USN agree on much else), and the civil world appears to think the 609
version will be worth owning based upon advanced orders, so those who
are declaring it an "obvious" deadbeat program must have some kind of
crystal ball that is unavailable to all of those interested parties.

Brooks



If it so revolutionary for the Marines requirements, then the risk is
probably worth taking anyway if it reduces 'risk' from enemy action.