Wednesday, February 16, 2011

MV-22 the best rotor aircraft in the Marine Corps???


via Lexington Institute...

V-22 Is The Safest, Most Survivable Rotorcraft The Marines Have


Here's a surprise: the V-22 Osprey has turned into the safest, most survivable rotorcraft the U.S. Marine Corps operates. The Osprey had its first fatal accident in ten years last April during a combat mission in Afghanistan, when an Air Force version hit the ground at high speed. But because of safety features built into the airframe, 16 of the 20 personnel on board survived. If you think that's still one crash too many, then you better not look at the safety records of other rotorcraft in theater, because many of them are not faring as well. After 14 operational deployments and 100,000 flight hours, the Osprey is beginning to look like a real life-saver.
That's not the way the V-22 began its history. Conceived as a versatile aircraft that could combine the land-anywhere agility of a helicopter with the speed (280 miles per hour) and range (375 miles) of a fixed-wing aircraft, the Osprey suffered two serious accidents during its development. Those accidents delayed fielding and left a lasting impression on critics, who to this day allege it is a flawed aircraft. The Marine Corps vigorously disagrees, arguing it is a safer and more flexible way of getting troops from ship to shore than any other means available. A mounting body of evidence from operational deployments indicates the Marines are right. Not only is the V-22 less likely to be hit by ground fire than conventional helicopters (because it flies faster and higher), but when it is hit it suffers less damage and if it crashes occupants are more likely to survive.
Over the last ten years, the V-22 mishap rate has been about half the average for the entire Marine aircraft fleet, and it is currently the lowest of any rotorcraft in that fleet. These averages are adjusted to reflect time actually flown, so it really is a surprisingly safe aircraft, considering it only recently entered service. New airframes usually have higher mishap rates than aircraft that have been operated for many years. Of course, none of this would matter if the Osprey couldn't do much, but in fact it is living up to its potential for versatility, conducting everything from night raids and medical evacuations in Afghanistan to logistical support and humanitarian assistance in Haiti. It is also proving to be the most flexible airframe employed by Air Force special operators, who use it for an array of harrowing combat and rescue missions. Readiness rates for the Marine version are around 70 percent, which is quite respectable for a new and novel airframe.
But much of this progress has not been noticed by the political system, which finds it hard to forget the testing accidents that occurred many years ago. In fact, three different amendments are currently pending in Congress to delete some or all of the funding for the Osprey, and the president's bipartisan deficit panel suggested ending production early because the program had a "troubled history" of developmental problems. That's kind of like saying that Mr. Obama does not deserve reelection because he had a tough childhood, without looking at what he's done lately. With only $15 billion left to be spent in a $70 billion acquisition program, it makes no sense to cut the V-22 program just as the Marines are about to reach their inventory goal. Costs are down, readiness is up, and the Osprey has become the safest way of moving troops around combat zones. This is one program that deserves to stay on track.
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.

Solid argument.  Not sure I still don't want more CH-53K's.  More thought necessary on this one.

13 comments :

  1. I'm in your camp re the CH-53K's. But it's also nice to hear something good about the Ospreys.

    ReplyDelete
  2. if i am not mistaken the 22 and 53K have different roles, the 22 has greater range (879 nmi vs 454 nmi), but the 53K has larger cargo capacity (20,000 lb (9,070 kg) of internal cargo, or up to 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of external cargo (dual hook) vs. 35,000 lb (15,900 kg); per wikipedia, please correct me if these numbers are wrong). so i dont see it as we need one or the other, i see it as great the 22 is coming into service and filling its role, now lets kick some ass in DOD and get the 53K and fill out the rest of the roles.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think the Osprey caught flak because of the same reasons the F-35 now does, cost and delay. It became a poster child for mismanagement in the post-Cold War military, no one really cared how good it was, as long as it wasnt in service in numbers it made a good target. Now its got a track record, the problems have been ironed out and its fulfilling its designed potential...nothing to moan about anymore other than unit cost, which is still out of control but cant be helped.

    As for a good safety record, yes the Osprey looks good compared to the rest of the fleet, but then the rest of the fleet is pushing 20+ years on average (if not more) and is getting hard use, especially the Stallions. The Osprey still represents a tiny fraction of the active combat fleet and is young so problems not occurring is just the way it should be. Loren's jumped the gun, we should be having this conversation in 5 years.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Joe, Thats exactly why V22 is slowly pushing ahead of the CH53... its all about range. The Marines currently have two strong motivations for devoting themselves to this aircraft: first with the Navy wanting to move further away from shore, the aircraft have to fly that much further and back; second, their is also a future emphasis on more distributed warfare, which necessitates greater speed and range to react.

    The only short comings with the V22, are the ones left by the fact that the V22 was originally intended to have an escort aircraft, that hasn't materialized. I still want to see some of the X-2 features applied to the next block of AH-1.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jeffrey, i completely agree with that but i think an upgraded 53K is needed for heavy supply or resupplying forward bases when needed (i.e. FOBs in Afghanistan who rely solely on air resupply). i think theres a need for both and as noted above the stallions are getting old, we need a newer version, more capabilities, more survivable yet still heavy lift. V22 is medium lift and has its role, i see these as complementary not competitive.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In five years I gonna read something like this about the F-35

    ReplyDelete
  7. The V-22 is the future of aviation, VTOL will be key, especially in urban areas. I hope they can eventually make the cabin pressurized, and install a GAU-19. Maybe have other variants like an ASW, AWAC, especially an aerial-refueler, even a specter-spooky version with a dual 30mm canon underneath. The Sikorsky X2 is also a pivotal aircraft, it has the top speed, ceiling height, not quite the range of the V-22, but could serve as the ideal armed escort and attack role along side the V-22, just saying!

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's apples and oranges. The MV-22's role in theater is different than that of helicopters. The Osprey is used primarily for troop transport and cargo, while helicopters, including UH60, CH-47 and AH-64 are down in the dirt where the action is, deploying troops, restocking ammo at forward operating bases, and conducting dust-off flights for the critically injured.

    As a helicopter driver I'm looking at comparing hour for hour the types of missions flown leaving the published stats meaningless.

    Furthermore, at 100 million dollars a copy, and that's what it really costs, with direct operating costs at another $11,300 an hour, do you really think the three-stars are going to place this aircraft in harms way? No, never. At the price for one Osprey we could purchase 12 EC145T2 12 place helicopters that can actually fly, hover, and land in Afghanistan.

    Eurocopter also has their X-3 hybrid helicopter (currently testing) that can carry 12 and fly at speeds over 220 knots for $10 million a copy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. MV-22 conducts those same missions.

    what are you talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bob meant:

    Use the Osprey the way it's designed to be used (transporting assets faster and farther than most rotor-wings can), not just like "any other helicopter," which strictly speaking, it isn't one.

    Otherwise, what's the point of spending $billions designing and buying such a hybrid?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Correct. The other point I was trying to make is all the Marine Corp's copters can fly 10,000 feet, out of the range of small arms fire. That's been the justification given by the Corp's top brass before congress to spend 100 mil a copy. There's no match well a well trained marine goes up against an unarmed congressman. Trained in hand to hand and in the art of deception, the slippery tongue of the marine wins every time!

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.