Sad day! Sad for pretty much everybody involved. But moreso I think for LtGen Trautman. I hated to hear him say so many of the things he said when I know he knew better. And, if you didn't tune in to the hearing, I'll enumerate later if somebody wants me to.

Sad for the Marine Corps at the end, when I guess everybody thought the mikes were off, and the Squadron CO, Col Heckl, said, "This is a waste of time", and Trautman said, "Calm down, calm down". Heckl got so overwrought he couldn't think as fast as he wanted to talk and he really got overly passionate and lost his objectivity. Guess I can understand that, though.

But over the years, I've become accustomed to the end users defending the machine, (any machine, not just the Osprey), because it is better than what they were using. As the tester, I always had to look beyond that and ask if the product was what we had paid for, was it safe, and was it going to accomplish the mission. In all three cases, I must state that I believe the answer is "no".

quote:

As the tester, I always had to look beyond that and ask if the product was what we had paid for, was it safe, and was it going to accomplish the mission. In all three cases, I must state that I believe the answer is "no".

That's what some of us have been saying all along. It does have a mission, just not assault support...

quote:

Osprey Shortfalls Lead Chairman to Call for Production Halt
Towns determines V-22 Osprey performance, cost, safety issues not a recipe for longevity

WHAT SAFETY ISSUES!!!

Anyway, I agree there are serious reliability issues. Granted we have made great strides at improving on those issues. However, it is TO early in the ballgame (3 USMC deployments/0 AFSOC deployments) to assert that the aircraft can't perform the mission for it respective service is akin to saying an MLB Rookie who just finished first season in the big leagues won't amount to much because he batted 220 with only 10HRS and 20 RBI's.

We all knew that the V-22 haters in the world would find something to ***** about even if the Marines manage not to ball one up or get shot down during IQ operations....anyone surprised?

Again though, the CV-22 program is here to stay...USSOCOM has too much invested in it and so far the customers are very happy with what it can provide them.

quote:

WHAT SAFETY ISSUES!!!

Anyway, I agree there are serious reliability issues.

You contradict yourself. A reliability issue IS a safety issue. If the platform can’t launch to perform its intended mission or operate in its intended environment, then it becomes a safety issue. Why spend the money if it’s sitting on the tarmac broken??

quote:

Originally posted by Ogie1:

quote:

WHAT SAFETY ISSUES!!!

Anyway, I agree there are serious reliability issues.

You contradict yourself. A reliability issue IS a safety issue. If the platform can’t launch to perform its intended mission or operate in its intended environment, then it becomes a safety issue. Why spend the money if it’s sitting on the tarmac broken??

I don't think so.

The reliability issues we have been having have not had anything to do with safety. They are parts/components that prevent us from flying, not parts or components that fail in flight. Moreover, it has been the environment that we operate in that is driving the reliability issues.

To be honest though, these reliability issues will impact mission capability sooner rather than later.

Like I have said before, the USMC is fully invested in the V-22...the last 46's have been retired on the east coast and the draw down is about to start on the west.

Equally, USSOCOM is a different pot of money when you are talking about aircraft acquisition. More important though, USSOCOM is viewed differently by congress than the USMC is when you are talking about acquisition.

The question I keep asking is this: What is going to replace the CH-46? The V-22 was intended to be the answer for that question, but through the achingly long development process, so many KPPs were unmet and subsequently changed that it no longer is required to be capable of doing the things the CH-46 could do, and did, in combat.

LtGen Trautman denies that we did these hairy maneuvers in combat. Au contraire!! He was not there and does not know. The '46 was described as a medium transport and compared to the V-22. But the maneuvering that could be done by the '46 is not in the performance envelope of the V-22. And, to give tactics its due, maybe those manuevers will never again be required. But 80% of combat losses in helicopters in Viet Nam occurred during final to a zone. That's where we did windup spirals, sideflares, and all the intensive maneuvering required to survive.

When you test an aircraft, you heavily instrument it. It is covered with strain gauges that measure tension, structural loads, etc. With the V-22, in early testing, it was found that those loads were so high that the structural life of the aircraft would be cripplingly reduced if those maneuvers were practiced, so no testing has ever been done in those areas and the V-22 NATOPS manual prohibits such maneuvering.

As I said before, if there is never again a requirement for strenuous combat maneuvering, the V-22 will probably fit the bill. There are still problems, however.

If, today, the V-22 was required to evacuate the American Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, it could go in and land inside the compound. But in those high/hot conditions, in order to lift a standard load of passengers out, the fuel would have to be so restricted that the V-22 would have to land within 60 miles of Kabul to refuel. I consider that a safety issue.

As Rex Rivulo pointed out, there will be incidents of massive power failures ... always have been, always will be. And, because there is no way to get this aircraft on the ground through autorotation, folks will die. But that is no different than any fixed wing. Massive power failure in fixed wing aircraft has pretty much always meant death for the folks in the back. So, a safety issue, but not one in my mind that should be a real focus. The failure to have an autorotational capability was known from the start.

R&M aside, my problems are focused on what a pilot does. I was always a human factors and ergonomics guy. And pilots are pilots. Remember the B-52 that went in at the Fairchild airshow in 1994 ... was in a 90 degree angle of bank when it hit the ground because of aggressive overmaneuvering by the pilot. Why did he do that? I don't know. He knew better. The world's most experienced F-16 pilot tried to do a split S from 2,500 feet west of Fort Worth with predictable results. Why did he do that? I don't know. He knew better. Pilots are going to fly aircraft beyond the published limits in violation of common sense and rules. In many aircraft, they get away with it. In the V-22, test results say they are less likely to survive those maneuvers.

Osprey critics...so precocious and full of wonderment.

quote:

As Rex Rivulo pointed out, there will be incidents of massive power failures ... always have been, always will be. And, because there is no way to get this aircraft on the ground through autorotation, folks will die. But that is no different than any fixed wing. Massive power failure in fixed wing aircraft has pretty much always meant death for the folks in the back. So, a safety issue, but not one in my mind that should be a real focus. The failure to have an autorotational capability was known from the start.

What is a "massive power failure"? There is no reference in my -1 to a "massive power failure". Perhaps they are talking about a DUAL ENGINE FAILURE? They must , since they like associate this "massive power failure" with needing to autorotate.

How many "massive power failure" have we seen on the V-22. ZERO!!!!

In my 8 years on the MH-53J/M, how many "massive power failures" did I have. ZERO!!!

In the 40+ years the USAF flew H-53's, how many "massive power failures" did the aircraft have. One that I am aware of.

To bang home my point about “massive power failures”…we spend only 5% of our flying time in a configuration (CONVERSION MODE) that would require us to attempt some sort of autorotation if we lost both engines. Based on how often we have seen DUAL ENGINE FAILURES in other military rotary wing aircraft and the minimum amount of time we spend in conversion mode, the likelihood and risk of having a “massive power failure” is EXTREMELY low.

Now, we have seen single engine failures on the V-22. I personally have had two of them. Guess what, the aircraft can fly just fine on one engine...in AIRPLANE MODE and in CONVERSION MODE.

I bet if you were to ask the congressional hacks from the hearings yesterday how the V-22 is able to fly one engine, they probably couldn't tell you. Heck, I bet without looking it up on the internet, you can explain that or what the glide ratio is for the V-22???

This heat from congress was expected. I would be willing to bet some the most critical members of congress were waiting for a few V-22 crashes in Iraq or elsewhere. Absent of that, they have to dig up past concerns, and attach them to issues we are seeing today.

As someone who has been flying the V-22 for 5 years, I will be the first to admit, the V-22 has reliability issues. However, does it make the aircraft unsafe. NO!!!

BTW, your match is off WRT your Kabul NEO example. 60 mile would equate to 15 minutes of fuel plus reserve (800lbs+1200=2000lbs). Without getting specific, a V-22 could easily take-off a lot more fuel than that.

It’s a good thing we didn’t have these hacks in congress in the late 60's/early 70's... they would have canceled the F-111 after its first deployment to RVN…they lost 7 of the 12 aircraft they sent over there…

This message has been edited. Last edited by: pavejim,

"It's a good thing we didn't have these hacks...would have canceled the F-111"

Agreed, not to get political, but I will, we deserve
what we voted in.

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT & GOVERNMENT REFORM even that is an oxymoron.

Check out the Press Secretary Adam Rex Clarence Hodge comments:

This message has been edited. Last edited by: TomHansen,

MV-22 Ospreys Conduct Medical Evacuation

(Source: US Navy; issued June 29, 2009)

USS BATAAN, At Sea --- The 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) made history by using two MV-22B Ospreys, assigned to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 263 (Reinforced), to conduct a ship-to-shore emergency medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) of a Sailor from USS Bataan (LHD 5) June 25.

This is the first time the aircraft has been used to conduct such a mission from the sea.

At approximately 4:30 p.m., two Ospreys were returning to Bataan after a routine mission when the pilots were notified of an emergency situation. The aircraft were ordered to return to the ship at maximum speed.

After landing aboard Bataan, the patient and team of medical personnel were brought aboard the aircraft and lifted off at 4:50 p.m. from Bataan's flight deck. The aircraft travelled 147 nautical miles in 37 minutes to a regional airport where an ambulance was used to transfer the Sailor to a hospital for further treatment.

The Sailor sustained head and hip injuries as well as chest pains after falling. The Sailor is in stable condition in the U.S. Central Command area awaiting further transfer.

"Everybody from the ship made this very easy for us," said Maj. Brett A. Hart, assistant operations officer for VMM 263 and one of the pilots on the mission. "It was an all-hands effort and everybody gave their utmost to ensure the safety of this Sailor."

Hart, who has had experience in conducting MEDEVACS in other aircraft like the CH-46E Sea Knight, said the biggest difference with using the Osprey was the rapid speed with which the mission was executed.

"By virtue of having this aircraft, we were able to do it much faster and farther," he said. "This is a fine example of why we have an aircraft like this."

The 22nd MEU deployed May 15, aboard ships from the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group and is currently deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet Area of Operations.

The 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit is a multipurpose force of more than 2,200 Marines and Sailors. Led by Col. Gareth F. Brandl, the 22nd MEU is composed of its Ground Combat Element, Battalion Landing Team, 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment; Aviation Combat Element, VMM-263 (Rein); Logistics Combat Element, Combat Logistics Battalion 22; and its Command Element.

-ends-

You know what? I quit again. I forgot how insulting it was to try to argue with folks who don't do their homework.

1. I consider a crossshaft failure a massive power failure. Killed everybody on the airplane, near as I can remember. One of them was my maintenance chief when I was a squadron CO, MGySgt Gary Leader. A great Marine and a fine friend. Another was Leader's brother-in-law. The Marine pilot aboard was a guy I selected for TPS. Yes, it DOES get personal for me. Of course, if you had paid attention to what I wrote in the first place, you would have seen that I was not lambasting the V-22 for that. I said it was a safety issue, but not one that should be a real focus.

2. As far as Kabul goes, had you planned to fly TO the embassy or just FROM the embassy? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't even the highly-vaunted, eagerly-anticipated V-22 require fuel to get there?

3. Then there's the F-111. You really should have picked a different example. You did a perfect job of proving the point you were trying to disprove!

4. And finally, although I won't be back to read your answer, are you really going to try to tell me the V-22 met its KPPs and is the appropriate replacement for the CH-46, even at over $100M a copy?

OBTW, a nod to you, Schlappy. Why don't you actually look up the definition of "precocious". I suspect you meant it to be an insult, but you picked the wrong word.

I'm simply disgusted. Over, out, and gone.

Been reading some of these 'replies'. The wuations in my mind is this. Is the Osprey an excellent/good/fair/poor bird?
Just wondering. I know a little about some a/c when the Corps entered the jet age. There sure was a lot of talk both good and bad about particular birds in those days. But this Osprey thing sure seems to keep front and center in the opinion department. It sure is expensive too. Oh well....Semper Fi

Ok, Joegofaster. Your going on a two week fishing trip for posting a UHL. You have read the past few pages and it has been know to all that this is a rule. Contact me when your ready to come back...NO posting of UHL's

Col Lawerence

I hope you reconsiderer, your input as "being there done that" is a factor we don't get very often. I can't keep members from voicing there opinion, but when it comes to purposely hurting a person for their gain, I will not let that happen. If someone says something you don't like or agree with just blow them off as all they are doing is trying to get a reaction from you. Keep in mind, WE do know there have been members on this thread paid by those against this Airframe, when we find them we have dealt with them. I hope you reconsider...

Tom Hansen
Marine Moderator
Air Wing

Folks, I know that the costs, both in blood and treasury have been high in maintaining this airframes and program, but what is the future cost if do not have it in conflicts and operations on down the road in both short term and long term?

The mission is out there and the need is to great to let this bird die on the vine.

My kid my be a pouge now, but others will be needing it.

This aircraft could mean the difference between a long protracted conflict and a short one.

The time difference is paid in American blood and lives.

IMHO.

All - I am researching the MV-22 and have a quick question on MV-22 flight resatrictions or lack thereof. The 2001 GAO report specifically mentions the 250 ft. flight separation in flight and this reappears in other more recent criticisms of the aircraft. Does this flight restriction continue today? I have not been able to locate any evidence that it continues or that it has been solved/removed and if so, when the restriction ws removed. Thanks.

I was there with Col Heckl and VMM 162 in Iraq. I understand why he's so passionate about the osprey. We were able to do everything that was asked of us and more.

And to answer the previous question about the osprey's range (evac embassy etc), we can aerial refuel.

Also, regarding block A aircraft in the fleet. The squadrons borrow block As from 204 or elsewhere until they receive their block Bs from the factory.

Current restrictions:
VTOL/CONV: Minimum separation is 250 ft
cockpit‐to‐cockpit and 25 ft of step up. During
approach and landing phase, maintain step up
until lead lands or maintain 250 ft separation.
While maintaining 250 ft separation, avoid 5 to 7 o'clock position downwind of the upwind aircraft.
a. Crossovers in descending, turning flight
prohibited.
b. Crossovers in descending, wings level flight
prohibited with ROD in excess of 500 fpm.
c. Crossovers shall maintain at least 50 ft of
step‐up.

But Ogie, your a retired 46 Jockey. How would you know? Do you have a Natops manual for the Ospery? But then you would have a Classified piece of material then wouldn't you?

quote:

Originally posted by TomHansen:
But Ogie, your a retired 46 Jockey. How would you know? Do you have a Natops manual for the Ospery? But then you would have a Classified piece of material then wouldn't you?

NATOPS manuals aren't classified (most have a classified addendum to them but the manual itself is not classified).

They are, if I remember correctly, For Official Use Only (FOUO), which although not classified still places some restriction on dissemination.

With the proliferation of information on the internet, I'm not even sure it would be possible to stop the dissemination of FOUO information anymore. It would be difficult at the very least.