Osprey's Fatal Flaw(s) - my opinion

1. Costs way too much.
2. Will suck up USMC manpower and money like no other helo. Those men and money will come from other helo units.
3. Maintenance will keep availability ay very low levels.
4. Limited mission capability.

Semper Fi

"Crazy Joe" Scholle

Ummm, I am afraid you are right on target Joe.

It has already "sucked up" enough money for a really good party!!:(

At the end of OPEVAL three years ago, the four V-22 test aircraft were taking 18.6 maintenance man-hours per flight hour (against an operational requirement of fewer than 11.0 MMH/FH. For comparison, Navy data for all CH-46 aircraft in the Navy and Marine Corps averaged 15.8 MMH/FH from 1995 to 1999.
The operational requirement also requires that USMC direct maintenance spaces per aircraft must not exceed current levels dedicated to CH-46E and CH-53D medium lift squadrons.
By cranking the number machine, it was estimated that, based on the performance during the last half of OPEVAL, a 12-aircraft V-22 squadron would need 32 maintainers to fly 22.6 hours per aircraft per month, as opposed to a 12-aircraft CH-46 squadron that would need 27 maintainers to do the same.

So with a little improved reliability (to be expected as the design matures), the MMH/FH should be close to what the Frog community is experiencing.

The V-22 marginally met the user's requirement for mission readiness, demonstrating between 73 and 85 percent readiness during OPEVAL.

I'm not sure what you mean, Crazy Joe, by "limited mission capability". The V-22 met all key performance parameters during OPEVAL. It can self-deploy 2100 miles with one in-flight refueling. it cruises at 250 knots with 24 combat-equipped Marines aboard, it can lift an external load of over 10,000 pounds, and its much greater range in any assault configuration will allow much flexibility in LZ selection.

Costs way too much.

I agree. 🙁

TC

Limited Mission Capability means:

The ability to do one thing very well, move 24 Marines 200 + miles at 250 MPH. But how often will we ever need that capability ? The everyday bread and butter missions are not 200 miles away. Short back and forth hops with less than 24 Marines are usually the order of the day.

I sure hope that no one in command plans to put Marines 200+ miles away from their support and supply them with V-22's. In 1942 Herman Goering promised Adolf Hitler that he and The Luftwaffe could definitely supprt the troops at Stalingrad from about 200 miles with aerial drops. History has showed us the folly of that boast.

The V-22 may turn out to be a good airplane, but I don't believe it's the aircraft that the Marine Corps needs to replace the aging CH-46.

Semper Fi

"Crazy Joe" Scholle

I think that the idea behind the "200 mile" thing is that as the Navy continues to steam toward the objective that a complement of Marines can be dispatched a little sooner that is now possible.

IF a squadron could keep 10 Osperys flying, that means that a whole company (re-inforced) could be placed "on site" in a single lift.

In a matter of just a short time, relatively speaking, quite a formadable force could be in place.

I think the Osprey could be a viable "over the horizon" asset. I just have a gut feeling that it can't fulfill the mission of ANY helicopter.

If the powers that be would, in my humble opinion, 'fess up to the fact that the Osprey really isn't a "battlefield asset" things would go a lot smoother and it, the Osprey' could be in the inventory in the not to distant future as a "transport" for troops and supplies. THAT role seems to be the optimum use of it.

Let the helos do what they do well.

The 200 ile thing was came up with so that the Marines can deploy from over the horizon. Which means you don't see the foot print on the ships bring Marines over.

The re supply issue is kind f tough we found that out in Iraq a little bit.

Last time I checked, 50 miles was "over the horizon", about a 25 to 30 minute run for the CH-46.

Semper Fi

"Crazy Joe" Scholle

You're correct on "over the horizon" Joe, but I think bypassing the "beach" defensive positions is also an objective.

Bob Q

You have to remember that this A/C was designed durring the cold war era. When they thought they would have to go deep into somewhere when beach landings where not a plan. Also going to the drop spot and back multiple time with out refueling, or doing inflight refueling is a bonus.

I've been reading this website for well over a year and I finally had to reply. "Crazy" Bob, what do you think the Marine Corps just did about 2 years ago? They deployed several hundred Marines hundreds of miles inland into Afghanistan. Everyone must understand that the Marine Corps is no longer "amphibious"; rather it is "expeditionary." Litoral areas include population centers up to 500 miles of the sea. Don't get me wrong, I loved flying the Phrog and think that it is a great piece of equipment but I also believe that its time has come and gone. Gone in the fact that the Marine Corps decided to go with something different and has not funded the 46 community very well for the last couple of years. The guys that came back from Iraq are on their knees. Don't think that the Osprey will have all of the capabilities of the 46, but remember that the Osprey will have a lot of newer capabilities. These capabilities will complement the new tactics and missions of the 21st century. I love reading what people have to say on this website and look forward to future discussions.

Skippy

🙂 Skippy,

I think you have said the crux of the matter with "new tactics and missions of the 21st Century".

I just hope that any future mission planning and required support elements will include something that can operate in and out of limited area zones ( we used to call them Confined Area Landings) in places like the Phillipines or, God forbid, SE Asia and even parts of the African Continent.

Proof will be in the pudding, as they say...:confused:

"I hate to be pedantic", he says and then proceeds to do be just that.

The saying is "The proof of the pudding is in the eating". Proof in the old sense of the word, meaning test. So the only true test is to use it.

Arrrrgh!!!

Ya got me John!!!:D

What is your take, John, being a former Tech Rep on the '46 with 165???

If ya want, you can "PM" me. Or, use my e-mail addy. You should have it.... I think.

True the only real test is to use the airframe in combat, Having been over in Iraq I not sure it could have done everything the 46 did. It probably would have done fine, but we will never know.
I just gained alot of respect for the 46 community over there. And thats a tough for me to say, since I am a skidkidd.
But we became a tight nit group, at least the ones I hung out with in the CALS of bagdad.

Opinion on the Osprey

Hey Joe, you don't know what demons you may let loose asking me for an opinion.

Let me start by saying that I am not really qualified to have a definitive opinion on the Osprey; I don't have the data nor the experience.
BUT that never stopped me before so why should it now!

I would have to say my feelings about the airplane are mixed. On one hand, you only make progress when you stick your neck out. But on the other this airplane is truly heading into unknown territory and there is bound to be problems we don't know about yet, the dreaded UNK/UNKs, and they usually manifest themselves by killing someone. I'm also concerned that the typical squadron maintenance will not be up to the complexity of the airplane.

Having said all that, my temperament says keep going. I haven't heard anything yet that I haven't heard about other airplanes at the same stage in their development. The B-17 was supposed to be too big and complex for ordinary mortals to fly. Today it seems small and simple. The biggest concern about the B747 was the pilot is so high off the ground when the mains touch down that only a superman could judge when to start flaring. Somehow pilots do it every day. And who would ever have dreampt in 1967 that the H-46 would eventually become the second safest helicopter in service. (the safest is the H-47, the Chinook).

It seems unfeeling to say it but in Aviation, progress is often measured by the number of people killed to find out what we don't know. Today society is unwilling to pay the price but it's still there and if we want the progress we must pay the price.

I think it is a mistake to think of the Osprey as a helicopter. It is a medium speed, medium range transport that can land and take off vertically. And it is the first in what I am sure will be a line of aircraft. It gives the Marine Corps a capability that it doesn't have now. Whether is is worth the considerable cost is a decision above my pay grade (even PFCs make more than I do) but new airplanes always seem unbelivably expensive and they become cheap in time. The H-46 at almost $1 million a pop plus GFE was considered outrageously expensive in 1964. I think we got our money's worth out of the old 'phrog'.

It has been said repeatedly that the only true test is in combat and airplanes that would have passed from the inventory unlamented sometimes turn out to be winners. The F105 is a good example. For all its faults it would fly home with holes in the wing big enough to stand in. You've got to love an airplane like that.

Well then, 'Dullighan' after all that rambling around, tell us what you think. I think we should proceed, recognizing there is a price to pay and it's not just money.

In 1944 the USN commissioned a study to decide if there was a use for the helicopter in Naval and Marine Corps service. The conclusion.

"There is no place for the helicopter in the Navy or the Marine Corps".

The author, Thornton Page, happened to be my former wife's uncle and he used to tell the story against himself to illustrate the point that you have to look, not just at the present capabilities of a piece of hardware but what it can develop into. He would say that his recomendation should have been; "There is no use for the helicopter as it is at present but there may be a use for it if it can be made more reliable, easier to fly and can lift heavier loads (the latter really means better engines). Thornton Page went on to have a distinguished career with NASA but he kept a copy of the 1944 report on his desk. The early helicopters killed a lot of people too.

John,

Thanks for the insight.

It would seem that most of us agree, it is "expensive", not overly reliable (at this point in development), hard to maintain and not reallly a replacement for helicopters.
At least not as we know the role of a helicopter.

I hope that the fortitude is out there to recognize what the Osprey is "good" at and will persue that end: not try and make it something it isn't.

Thanks again, John, for your input.:)

John said it one way and I'll say it another.

We will never know the true possibilities of the V-22 until it gets to the men and women in the field. They are the ones who will fly it and fix it and find out its weakness and strength. That is how it always has been with military aviation. All the testing in the world will not replace the real thing. The '46 was not a shining star by any stretch of the imagination in its early days back in the 60s; but here we are saying the same things about the aircraft which is tasked with replacing it.

The V-22 has been 14 years in development. Why? It will never be a perfect solution to the problem or perceived needs. Neither will any other aircraft out there or presently in development. The '46 was designed as a medium-lift troop transport. All I heard was it couldn't do what the '34s could do. The Marines took the '46 and corrected or modified it to do what needed to be done to accomplish the mission. The same thing will happen with the V-22. This happened in every community in Marine Aviation - F-4, H-1, A-6, C-130, A-4, H-53, AV-8, OV-10, F-18 and the many others. It happens on the ground side of the Corps, also. That is the Marine Corps.

Stop the bickering and get on with the program. The V-22's replacement is already being designed on some computer somewhere. Hopefully, it won't take 40 years to replace it when the time comes.

My faith and support is to the men and women in uniform and the civilians who stand alongside them that the V-22 or any other weapons system will be maintained and used to the best of their abilitities. It is an unfortunate fact of life, especially in military procurement in this country, we don't always get the best and have to adapt and overcome to succeed.

Semper Fidelis,
Mike

I agree with everything Mike said.

TC

Mike's Post

Couldn't have said it better myself. Agree with everything Mike says.

Hey Leatherneck. Keep up the good work.

As they say in the RAF, "Non Illigitimus, Carburundum" Roughly translated and I do mean roughly, 'Don't let the Ba....ds grind you down'.

I know what it's like at this stage in a long development program. The end is so near you can taste it but there always seems to be something else that pops up. Remember the old saying, the last 5% consumes 25% of the time and 50% of the money.

Yep, it takes a while.

I wish they'd start doing things with it that it will face when it gets "on-line". I know they need to have all of the "controled" tests, but even the tests won't do what will happen once it is really being used.

Ah, well, Ours is not to question why, ours is just to do and ????

The Charge of the Light Brigade

You might wonder where the above quote comes from.

Only the Brits would write glorious poetry about what is one of the more spectacular screwups in military history. If you don't win then turn a defeat into something glorious. The charge took place in the Crimean War 1853-1856 when the Light Brigade charged up a narrow valley, straight into a Russian gun battery that they knew was there. The casualties were 478 killed out of 673, 70%++

THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE

by: Alfred Tennyson (1809-1892)

I

HALF a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
'Forward the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns!' he said.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

II

'Forward the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Some one had blunder'd.

Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

III

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of hell
Rode the six hundred.

IV

Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turned in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd.
Plunged into the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel'd from the sabre-stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not,
Not the six hundred.

V

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

VI

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made!
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!

Thanks, John, for the encouragement. As many know, "stuff happens" in developing a new aircraft. It's expected, it's planned for, and the effects are dealt with as they occur. There are real professionals working on the Osprey program, and they do what pros do...

The discouragement comes from people who are unable or unwilling to look at things objectively and acknowledge the good with the bad. Objectivity can be a rare commodity.

S/F
TC

edited to add:
Next Thursday at New River, the Marine Corps' newest squadron stands up. VMX-22 will first train for, and then execute an operational assessment of the Block A aircraft, and then execute OPEVAL Phase Two in late 2004. Then they'll become a tiltrotor experimantal squadron to learn how to fight the machine. What a long time coming; but we're on the right track, I think.

It is good news that the Osprey is finally scheduled to get back into a "lets see what it will REALLY do" mode.

It will be interesting to see if one can do what we used to do with the phrogs. (see below).

Lotsa luck and hope that all the really "big" bugs are taken care of.:)

Sadly, and in my humble opinion, we are all looking at the 'technology' of war. History, in most instances clearly demonstrates that victory in war is rarely achieved with technology. Strategic bombing in World War 2 is a perfect example. While bombing certainly had an affect on the outcome of the war it still did not prevent Germany from producing arms right up to the last day of the war. Germany, without a doubt had a leadership role on technology. One need only look at the V2, V1, jet aircraft and rotarywing technology they produced. Germany lost the war because it could not produce enough people to fill it ranks and it diverted precious resources to the development of costly weapons systems. War is simply the law of large numbers prevailing over an opponent with fewer numbers...the Russians proved it on the Eastern front in WW 2. Many men (and women), simple but effective tanks, artillery and planes. The Germans would have two hundred 88 artillery pieces only to be faced with eight hundred Russian 82's...guess who won?

My point is really simple: Technology is a great thing, but having my ruthers I would take say one hundred 53's over twenty V22's. From an operational aspect I believe the 53's, or even the old 46's would outperform the V22's tactically. No one involved in combat operations wants to hear about maintenance hours and growing pains of an aircraft platform...they want to see those medevac planes in the air, they want to see resupply and troop insertions whenever necessary...and they want aircraft survivability to be part of the game plan.

It is unfortunate, but true, that the Marine Corps is still the step child of the military. The Corps has to still perfome above expectations, produce results that exceed all other branches of our armed forces, do it better and faster than everyone and do it all on a budget that is an insult to the Corps. If you really want the Corps to progress and improve contact your elected representatives in Washington, DC. And if you believe all is well try to catch Congressional hearings on cable when the Marine contingent is there presenting their case to Congress...it will make you sick.

Anyway, my nickels worth on the subject. Frankly, we should still be building the 34D's...now there was a piece of machinery that was simple, strong and ugly...but it could take a licking and keep on ticking...:cool:

And My Nickel's Worth

I have to side with 'Gordo' on this, and that is my nickel's worth.

😉