V-22 Osprey Put to the Test in Iraq

Ten Osprey's made there way to western Iraq to support Marines in Al Anbar province.

This plane has the tilt rotor wing and has had some difficulties throughout it's development and the program was almost shelved when one crash claimed the lives of 19 Marines.

The plane's benefit is it's speed in comparison to regular helocopters reducing response time by 1/2.

We will have to keep an eye out, and see if this hybrid aircraft can become a reliable form of transport for our Marines in the province.

www.cbsnews.com

(CBS) Ten V-22 Ospreys are flying from the USS Wasp in the Red Sea, through Jordan, to western Iraq.

In keeping with the Osprey's troubled history, one of them developed mechanical problems and had to return to the Wasp for repairs before resuming its flight, reports CBS News national correspondent David Martin.

edit:sp


[edit on 2007/10/5 by JacKatMtn]

I located some articles written prior to deployment of the planes, the first two don't paint a pretty picture for this aircraft. The third one a sort of rebuttal by Defense Industry Daily.

I am putting them here for reference.

V-22 Osprey: A Flying Shame

Combat, With Limits, Looms for Hybrid Aircraft

V-22 Osprey: A Flying Shame?

We could just give the insurgent Ospreys.

That'll solve the problem and we can go home.

reply to post by TheRanchMan


What is that supposed to mean?

The technology itself isn't new but this is the first time such an aircraft has been put into mass production. It will have problems. Everything from the CH-47 to the UH-60 to the AH-64 to.... have had problems and crashed, sadly killing people.

CH-47: www.chinook-helicopter.com...

UH-60: the.honoluluadvertiser.com...

AH-64: www.usaarl.army.mil...

Granted, human error has played/will play a major attribute to crashes of any aircraft. But, many mechanical problems resulted in the deaths of quite a lot of people.

My take on it, give the V-22 some time. After it has seen combat then we can judge.

My concern is that while the bugs have been worked out, how is it going to fair when hit by an RPG? or other type of weapon. In theory its it sounds awesum, but it seems too delecate to be used as an assult vehicle, but rather a behind the lines animal

The Air Force Special Operations Command will be fielding CV-22's real soon and they seem to be putting a lot of trust into these birds.

They're good replacements for the large PaveLows in certain arenas. The CV-22 may not replace it in heavy-lifting, but right now the CV-22 is the best option for Special Forces insertions and that seems to be the best purpose for it.

I'm not too sure how well it would fair as an assault ship or gunship.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by FredT
My concern is that while the bugs have been worked out, how is it going to fair when hit by an RPG?.....

Maybe they are going to put a cage around them like the Stryker!!

Seriously, I heard they ain't all that good for SOF. Seems they like to leave a pretty big burn pattern on the ground. That will defeat the purpose of any sort of covert infil.

I heard the exact opposite (from my books).

Burn pattern? I can't imagine the CV-22 being any worse for infiltration than the Pave Lows.

Shattered OUT...

What I had heard about "burn pattern" was just that, it burned the ground. I think the Marines were doing some demo for Congress and whatnot and they managed to set fire to the grass. MH-53's aren't known to do that.

Really? Absolutely the first I am hearing about an powered-lift rotorcraft doing anything called a "burn pattern". In the research I've done, that's never come up, how exactly is "burn patter" a problem and how is it created?

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by Midav
reply to post by TheRanchMan

 

What is that supposed to mean?

The technology itself isn't new but this is the first time such an aircraft has been put into mass production. It will have problems. Everything from the CH-47 to the UH-60 to the AH-64 to.... have had problems and crashed, sadly killing people.

CH-47: www.chinook-helicopter.com...

UH-60: the.honoluluadvertiser.com...

AH-64: www.usaarl.army.mil...

Granted, human error has played/will play a major attribute to crashes of any aircraft. But, many mechanical problems resulted in the deaths of quite a lot of people.

My take on it, give the V-22 some time. After it has seen combat then we can judge.

The problem is...is that the technology is new. The concept however, is not so new. But the technology hasnt been, and to a degree, still isnt there.

[edit on 6-10-2007 by West Coast]

Originally posted by FredT

My concern is that while the bugs have been worked out, how is it going to fair when hit by an RPG? or other type of weapon. In theory its it sounds awesum, but it seems too delecate to be used as an assult vehicle, but rather a behind the lines animal

I agree wtih you FredT. And I wish the best of luck to all the guys in that program, pilots and support personnel.

But my opinion is that it is the wrong techonology for the wrong war in the wrong place. It is a huge and delicate target. But, again, I hope for the best for all those guys.

Originally posted by FredT
...how is it going to fair when hit by an RPG? or other type of weapon.

Like any other large rotary AC? This seems to me to be an unfair and illogical question. Name any other large helicopter that can take RPG or MANPAD fire without care? In fact I think the V-22 will be able to absorb small arms and unguided RPG fire better than most helicopters due to it’s size and design. Sure if any of the rotors are hit, it will go down, but so will anything else flying. At least it is not reliant on the cumbersome tail-rotor configuration.

Originally posted by FredT
...but it seems too delecate to be used as an assult vehicle...

Not really, I think it will be better are taking fire than our legacy large choppers and it will be able to offer more capability in terms of offensive weaponry and defensive ability.

reply to post by West Coast


The V-22 is actually based on the XV-15 tilt rotor which first flew in 1977 (ironically, the first prototype crashed). The second XV-15 was being used by NASA for testing up until a couple of years ago before it was retired.

The XV-15 itself was designed around what information was gained from the XV-3, which first flew in 1955.

But, as you said, is the tech there yet? Is it ripe?

On similar note, The YB-49 was a great idea but not feasible until FBW tech came around decades later.

I hope the V-22 proves itself. Only time will tell if it does.

As I said. the concept is not new. the Technology to power it is.

The Marine pilots who fly the Osprey seem to be fairly confident in the aircraft. They've put a lot of flight hours in testing them, and feel like they're operating a safe aircraft. There have been many other aircraft with far worse safety records when first coming into service by the way.
As for their utility, their speed and relative silence while in flight compared to helicopters, gives them a huge advantage with regards to the element of surprise. It allows for quicker reaction times to intel, or for evacuation purposes of injured Marines too.

As has been stated above, the Osprey is no more vulnerable than a helicopter in vertical mode (and less so in cruise mode due to its greater speed), in respect to small arms and shoulder fired missiles.

It is my understanding that the biggest problem to fielding the aircraft has been a software issue concerning the rotor control system when aircraft are in close proximity, for instance on the deck of a ship, and there is asymmetric or uneven downwash from other Ospreys nearby.

Certainly, with the engines vertical for VTOL the engine exhausts are in proximity to and pointing at the ground so there is a possible burn problem. However, when operating from land (and especially in a dusty situation, as opposed to a demo for some big-wig), I would imagine that it would be standard practice to have the rotors tilted forward to achieve a rolling STOL take off - if only in consideration of visibility and dust ingestion.

While some may see the Osprey as a helicopter, in reality it is a combination of the roles of tactical transports such as the DHC Caribou and Buffalo (ironically the span across the rotors is just about the same as the span of a Caribou) with the VTOL capabilities of a heavy lift helo. While the Caribou and Buffalo have much greater range than a helo, they are not much faster than a Chinook due to the design considerations to meet their STOL requirements. That is, those aircraft must use slow speed wing sections to achieve STOL, whereas the Osprey can have a medium speed wing and achieve VSTOL as a helicopter.

Really, the only factor that has held up introduction of the Osprey into service has been the software required to control the two rotors for the very different situations of vertical and horizontal flight. Basically, in forward flight the rotor acts as a propeller with all the airflow coming from straight ahead, but in the vertical mode (and especially during the transition) the airflow is generally across the plane of the rotor and must be controlled in a similar fashion to a helicopter's rotor (ie:- tilting the effective plane of the blades and making allowance for advancing and retreating blades and the unequal lift that they produce). By comparison the software problem is far less complex for a jet powered vectored thrust aircraft. Equally, the use of a single rotor (or separate lift and propulsion 'rotors') would simplify the software problem greatly, but each of those solutions has negative factors associated with it in the intended role.

I'm rather betting that the designers would loved to have designed the Osprey to have been flown with two hand controllers, one for each rotor - that way they wouldn't have had to try to make a computer make all the rotor adjustments for stable flight from a single stick. However, there would be a great resistance to such a control system - not only would the pilot not have time to scratch his nose (or make any other adjustment to the systems), he wouldn't have a hand left to do it with!

The Winged Wombat

reply to post by The Winged Wombat


The Osprey programe has always had problems with downwash and alot of concern with its for and unpredicablity. In 1995 in testing there was concern over OT-IIA and the amount of downwash and its effect in roped extraction or deployment. From the sounds of it the downwash issue though has been more or less sorted since 2000 or so with the concluding of test in 2001-2 as well. Not sure how exactly the issue was addressed but as you said they seem to still be finding little things to do with it from time to time

Also to expand on the speed differences of the STOL aircraft to the Osprey to the Chinook.

Caribou Performance
Maximum speed: 216 mph (348 km/h)
Range: 1,307 mi (2,103 km)
Service ceiling: 24,800 ft (7,559 m)
Rate of climb: 1,355 ft/min (413 m/min)

Buffalo Performance
Maximum speed: 290 mph (467 km/h)
Range: 690 miles (1,110 km)
Service ceiling: 31,000 ft (9,450 m)
-------------------------
Osprey Performance
Maximum speed: 275 knots (316 mph, 509 km/h)
Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km) (unrefueled)
Service ceiling: 26,000 ft (7,925 m)
Rate of climb: 2,320 ft/min (11.8 m/s)
------------------------
Chinook Performance
Maximum speed: 170 kn VNE (196 mph, 315 km/h)
Range: 1,259 mi (1,110 NM, 2,060 km)
Service ceiling: 18,500 ft (5,640 m)
Rate of climb: 1,980 ft/min (10.1 m/s)

Interesting to note that the Osprey is 26 mph faster then a normal pourpose built aircraft like the Buffalo. Hmmmm Maybe Canada should look into a couple for SAR as well as complement any Chinooks we get (wishful thinking )

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

I still have yet to see anything noted on "burn pattern".

I can't seem to find anything on it with rotary aircraft.

Shattered OUT...

Interesting stuff, Canada.

Also it's interesting scanning those figures. It reminds me that quoted figures can be quite deceiving. For instance it is vivid within my memory (personal experience) that the max speed quoted on the Caribou is the never exceed speed (VNE - 208 knots) and is not something that the pilot would encounter in normal operations. Cruise for a Caribou is more like 140 knots - yep 5 knots slower than a DC-3! (We used to say that we could actually catch and pass another twin engined aircraft - the Britten-Norman Islander! - but. as you can imagine, it wasn't much of a bragging point!)

Equally, if I remember correctly, the Chinook (built around a similar size and weight load to the Caribou) cannot carry full fuel at max load weight - unlike the Caribou - and therefore in practice has a far shorter range.

The matter of burn pattern is based upon the fact that the turboprop exhausts are pointed at the ground when the engines are pointed skywards for VTO - a situation that a helicopter does not encounter. While the rotor downwash must cool the area affected, I can imagine that in some circumstances (unlikely to be encountered in normal operations) there could be a problem. I certainly wouldn't want to lie under the jet exhausts while the Osprey was doing a VTO.

The quoted example of a possible 'burn' above seems to me to be something encountered when giving a demonstration of VTO from an 'unsuitable' surface.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 11/10/07 by The Winged Wombat]