V-22 Defender Strikes + V-22 Assessment by a Ret. Naval Aviator

William Black wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Walt wrote:
Even if the Osprey worked perfectly, it is still a boondoggle because
it can't make opposed (or even potentially opposed) landings without
helicoptor gunship escorts.

The extra speed and range provided by the tilt rotor technology is
useless.
Simply by existing it will make a difference.

Make a few raids in "impossible" locations and you'll force the terrorists
to operate in an even more paranoid fashion.

Are we talking about Afghanistan here?

How do you tell the difference between the friendlies and the hostiles?

Get the point aircraft to buzz them. If they shoot then they are hostile.

Andrew Swallow

Andrew Swallow wrote:
William Black wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Walt wrote:
Even if the Osprey worked perfectly, it is still a boondoggle because
it can't make opposed (or even potentially opposed) landings without
helicoptor gunship escorts.

The extra speed and range provided by the tilt rotor technology is
useless.
Simply by existing it will make a difference.

Make a few raids in "impossible" locations and you'll force the
terrorists to operate in an even more paranoid fashion.

Are we talking about Afghanistan here?

How do you tell the difference between the friendlies and the hostiles?

Get the point aircraft to buzz them. If they shoot then they are hostile.

Andrew Swallow

If they sit they are friendlies, if they move they are enemy.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Oct 13, 12:24 pm, Dan wrote:

If they sit they are friendlies, if they move they are enemy.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

If they run, they are hostiles. If they stay still, they are well-
disciplined hostiles...

:/

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:50:23 -0700, BlackBeard
wrote:

On Oct 13, 12:24 pm, Dan wrote:

If they sit they are friendlies, if they move they are enemy.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

If they run, they are hostiles. If they stay still, they are well-
disciplined hostiles...

Har har har - given you're Air Force and talking Afghanistan, assuming
you know about the multiple blue-on-blues involving USAF on the giving
end and Canadians on the receiving end you might expect a snarky
response from at least one Canuck, right?

On Oct 12, 3:06 pm, Mike wrote:
V-22 Defender Strikes Back on Autorotation, Sort of

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/200...efender-s.html
V-22 Defender Strikes Back on Autorotation, Sort of
Roger Williams, the executive director and site leader at Bell
Helicopter Military Aircraft Assembly Center in Amarillo, Texashttp://www..amarillo.com/stories/100707/opi_8622521.shtml, wrote the
following in the Amarillo Globe News on Mark Thompson's critical TIME
magazine article on the V-22 Ospreyhttp://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1665835,00.html:

The Time article contends the Pentagon eliminated the autorotation
requirement for the V-22. The "autorotation requirement" has in fact
never changed, as it was never a specific requirement. Why? Because
the Osprey is not a helicopter.

The Pentagon's list of requirements for "Survivability and
Crashworthiness" from 1994 states:

"Power-off glide/autorotation: The JMVX (1994-era designation for the
V-22) must be capable of a survivable emergency landing."

The current requirements document says the V-22 "must be capable of
performing a survivable emergency landing with all engines inoperative
(Threshold/Block A/10)." [emphasis added]

What I don't get is Williams' claim that "autorotation" was never a
specific requirement, yet then he quotes from the Defense Department's
1994 list of requirements for the V-22 which explicitly states
"autorotation" as a means of achieving a survivable emergency landing
when the V-22 is in helicopter mode (when in plane mode, it will need
to be able to glide with the power off; note that it won't be able to
switch between helicopter mode to plane mode if the power is down).

CORRECTION: A reader writes that the V-22 can switch from helicopter
to plane mode if the engines lose power:

The reason is that as long as the rotors are turning (and they
would keep turning), there is power to the hydraulic system -- and
it is the hydraulic system that provides the power to convert.
Also, with the rotors still turning, the electrical generators
still operate, providing electrical power to the flight control
system for stability and control.

-- Nick Schwellenbach

October 10, 2007 in Defense | Permalink

TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/108150/22330512

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference V-22 Defender Strikes
Back on Autorotation, Sort of:

Comments
I love this "Retired Naval Aviator" opinion like that's some holy
grail of knowledge. News break for you, there are hundreds of Naval
Aviators on both side of this debate. Most of the ones in favor are
actually flying it now (their life at stake) or recently retired after
years of working on it. Many of the those that don't like it are
crusty old "Nam era guys that can't find their ass with both hands.
The grey beards are so far removed from reality that they don't
warrant being taken seriously. Thanks boys, if it was up to you, we'd
buy some 1950 technology Phrog and it be just like the good old days
right? You'd be eating AAA and MANPADS up the ass, as you putt-putted
around at 100kts, but you could auto-rotate provided you didn't
desynch and die instantly and burn up on the ground. Great. Thanks for
the support.

The fix-wing guys have gone through 4 generations of front line
fighters but here you are supporting your rotary wing brethen's
attempt to modernize with an endorsement for the same old piece of
crap you flew in the 60s. Hay, thanks for weighing in. Better idea,
shut up and stop doing damage to the Corps.

Survivability is a complex subject. Often times you need to sub-
optimize in some areas in order to take advantage of others. No A/C
has been as thoroughly tested ballistically and done so well. The IR
and noise signature is non-existant relative to the CH-46. Exposure
time in the zone is also much less. Pay no attention to those that
assert it to be a lumbering giant. It's VN diagram performance exceeds
that of the UH-60. Of course, IT"S NOT A HELICOPTER !!! so stop
constantly comparing it to one.

For all things in life there is a bottom line and for THIS retired
Naval Aviator, it's that I'd rather fly in harm's way today in a V-22
than in a CH-46 or any other helo. Can't give a stronger personal
endorsement than where you'd risk your life.

Posted by: Matt | Oct 11, 2007 3:25:39 PM

Check your facts before mouthing off, wise guy. The V-22 is very
capable of converting from airplane to helicopter mode and back, if
needed, without engine power. The reason is that as long as the rotors
are turning (and they would keep turning), there is power to the
hydraulic system -- and it is the hydraulic system that provides the
power to convert. Also, with the rotors still turning, the electrical
generators still operate, providing electrical power to the flight
control system for stability and control. We should all be glad that
we had real engineers and, not idiots with nothing to do but write
blogs, designing the V-22. (Of course, you also probably don't have
the guts to post this one.)

Posted by: Jim | Oct 10, 2007 7:37:02 PM

It's not even proven that the V-22 CAN'T autorotate - maybe it will be
able too, but the power regulating systems do not allow a large build-
up of Nr (rotor speed) above normal range to aid in the auto. The
"blue ribbon panel" has already researched this. It would take A LOT
of things to go wrong for the V-22 to find itself in a perdiciment
where an auto would be necessary anyways. That's the beauty of triple-
redundancy. Everyone stresses how important the auto is, because helo
guys practice it routinely. I don't have any figures on it, but I feel
that an auto is seldom used - nice to have - but practiced and not
utilized. I'm sure that in the building of events that would
neccessatate an auto would already have the pilots in airplane mode
for gliding - if they weren't already. I would take my chances with a
V-22 on glide than a CH-46 or CH-53 in an actual auto - anyday!

http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/200...ssessment.html
V-22 Assessment by a Ret. Naval Aviator
UPDATE: A friend says that Les Horn is wrong when it comes to the cost
benefit trade-off, in particular his comparison of the H-46 and the
V-22:

A, you can't buy H-46s anymore. B, it never carried 20-24 soldiers (I
don't believe) or the weight of a V-22 and existing ones fly half-full
about 100-plus miles, which is why Marines always compare V-22 to
H-46. See the Fort Worth Star Telegram story "V:22 Ready for Combat,"
which I believe has comparisons with S-92 and EH101, better
comparisons. It doesn't do any good to attack this thing with
inacurrate data.

The Star Telegram article does include the following comparison:

When loaded with cargo or 24 troops, the V -22 has a documented round-
trip range of about 460 miles. The Marines' CH-53 helicopters can fly
about 552 miles carrying 35 to 45 troops. The newer US101 helicopter,
which carries at least as many troops as the V -22 , can fly more than
690 miles. All three aircraft can be refueled in midair.

Ok here's what was passed along earlier today...

The following excellent, concise assessment of the MV-22 program was
written by Les Horn, a retired Naval aviator, following a series of
articles about the aircraft's deployment to Iraq.

Autorotation. I talked with a number of helo drivers I know. All
condemned the elimination of the V-22's autorotation capability.
They see it as an unacceptable compromise of safety to meet cost &
weight targets of an inherently flawed design. One helo driver --
disabled twice by enemy gunfire in 'Nam, is alive today (he sez) only
because he was able to autorotate to a safe landing.

Cost Benefit Trade-off. You can buy ten H-46s for the cost of one
V-22, yet the H-46 can carry more than twice the personnel and has
twice the cargo weight/cube capacity of the Osprey.

Air Order of Battle. The V-22 has a Deck Multiple of 2.2, compared to
1.0 for the F/A-18A/B, 1.2 for the F-18E/F, and 2.0 for the H-46.
Irrespective of the insurmountable cost "barrier," how many V-22's
could actually be deployed on our-ever diminishing inventory of
available deck space? Given the V-22's reduced carrying capacity,
what does that portend for the Marine Corp's capability to project
offensive force inland from offshore platforms? The obvious answer is
that by embracing this platform, the Marines have abandoned the
classical concept of "Vertical Envelopment," and the V-22 will be
consigned to limited special forces-type insertions, or to low cost-
benefit logistic support into low threat AORs. Face it --we will never
be able to build & deploy enough of these platforms to make any real
difference in a pitched battle against a determined and well equipped
adversary.

Survivability. Many unacceptable trade-offs & compromises:

a. Armor: minimal to none. Weight limited. (Remember the 1000+ lbs of
ceramic armor we packed into our A-7s?)

b. Redundancy: Highly vaunted, but many necessarily non-redundant
systems are on critical path; e.g., damage to cross shafting, with
loss of engine, and no autorotate capability, would result of loss of
aircraft. Further, many dual-path redundant systems converge (or are
housed) in series in single non-redundant system components & black
boxes as a weight-saving measure.

c. Exposu A large, tender target during ground insertions, with
excessive time on deck required to debark combat loads. For example,
the light, thin-walled fuselage construction (another weight-saving
measure), lacks sufficient strength for conventional tie-down
hardpoints; consequently, twenty-four (24) tethers required to safely
secure one lightweight specially designed wheeled vehicle. Over three
to seven minutes have been required in OPEVAL demos to unhitch and
clear all tethers -- forcing the aircraft to remain on deck in a
highly vulnerable configuration, without sufficient self protection
(as reported in the Time article) for a dangerously long time.

Combat ...

read more »

All I can say is I wouldn't want to be inside that thing during a
crash. Its crashworthiness sucks.

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:41:33 -0000, Minnesota Fats
wrote:

twenty-four (24) tethers required to safely
secure one lightweight specially designed wheeled vehicle. Over three
to seven minutes have been required in OPEVAL demos to unhitch and
clear all tethers -- forcing the aircraft to remain on deck in a
highly vulnerable configuration, without sufficient self protection
(as reported in the Time article) for a dangerously long time.

That long to take a knife to a couple dozen pieces of rope?

Casady

"The Horny Goat" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:50:23 -0700, BlackBeard
wrote:

On Oct 13, 12:24 pm, Dan wrote:

If they sit they are friendlies, if they move they are enemy.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

If they run, they are hostiles. If they stay still, they are well-
disciplined hostiles...

Har har har - given you're Air Force and talking Afghanistan, assuming
you know about the multiple blue-on-blues involving USAF on the giving
end and Canadians on the receiving end you might expect a snarky
response from at least one Canuck, right?

BB is a submariner.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

On Oct 14, 12:58 am, The Horny Goat wrote:

Har har har - given you're Air Force and talking Afghanistan, assuming
you know about the multiple blue-on-blues involving USAF on the giving
end and Canadians on the receiving end you might expect a snarky
response from at least one Canuck, right?

Wow, what a bargain! Incorrect conclusion, prefaced by an assumption,
based on an incorrect statement. All in one paragraph! Thanks!

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 10:23:15 -0400, "Andrew Chaplin"
wrote:

"The Horny Goat" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:50:23 -0700, BlackBeard
wrote:

On Oct 13, 12:24 pm, Dan wrote:

If they sit they are friendlies, if they move they are enemy.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

If they run, they are hostiles. If they stay still, they are well-
disciplined hostiles...

Har har har - given you're Air Force and talking Afghanistan, assuming
you know about the multiple blue-on-blues involving USAF on the giving
end and Canadians on the receiving end you might expect a snarky
response from at least one Canuck, right?

BB is a submariner.

Sorry - I thought it was clear I was responding to Dan.

Actually the blue on blue problem has been there for quite a long
time. One personal friend was a MP the Canadians on D-Day - his job
was to get troops off the beach and into the woods beyond (basically
what the US army called a beach master).

He said his unit headed for the nearest trench anytime they saw a
plane flying over BEFORE they checked national IDs. He claims to have
been strafed by both USAAF and RAF but never by the Luftwaffe. He said
strafing only, no bombs, and that of his men a couple were lightly
wounded but nothing worse.

No doubt someone can come up with similar stories concerning WW1.

The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 10:23:15 -0400, "Andrew Chaplin"
wrote:

"The Horny Goat" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:50:23 -0700, BlackBeard
wrote:

On Oct 13, 12:24 pm, Dan wrote:
If they sit they are friendlies, if they move they are enemy.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
If they run, they are hostiles. If they stay still, they are well-
disciplined hostiles...
Har har har - given you're Air Force and talking Afghanistan, assuming
you know about the multiple blue-on-blues involving USAF on the giving
end and Canadians on the receiving end you might expect a snarky
response from at least one Canuck, right?
BB is a submariner.

Sorry - I thought it was clear I was responding to Dan.

Actually the blue on blue problem has been there for quite a long
time. One personal friend was a MP the Canadians on D-Day - his job
was to get troops off the beach and into the woods beyond (basically
what the US army called a beach master).

He said his unit headed for the nearest trench anytime they saw a
plane flying over BEFORE they checked national IDs. He claims to have
been strafed by both USAAF and RAF but never by the Luftwaffe. He said
strafing only, no bombs, and that of his men a couple were lightly
wounded but nothing worse.

No doubt someone can come up with similar stories concerning WW1.

The "if they sit they are friendlies, if they move they are enemy"
and "if they run, they are hostiles. If they stay still, they are well-
disciplined hostiles" phrases go back at least as far as Viet Nam. I
wouldn't be surprised if they didn't go back to when Oog organized the
very first army.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired