CV-22 Osprey info

[Wing Sweep]

Question for any IPs out there... If the initial cadre is already in place at KABQ, how soon can we expect USAF pipeline students to start tracking to the Osprey program? Also, what will the track be? Will it be similar to the USMC track of T-34/T-44/H-57/CV-22? If the opportunity came up to track into the program, I would do it in a heart beat!

[Guest hockeymv]

Actually, the Marine V-22 track is T-34 or T-37 (Vance) to TC-12's, then on to the H-57 and the V-22.

VT-35 in Corpus flies TC-12's and they have an exclusive V-22 training syllabus, different from all the other fixed wing cats down there.

[Guest rotorhead]

Just a few more ponderings...

Gabe2surf asked, "If the initial cadre is already in place at KABQ, how soon can we expect USAF pipeline students to start tracking to the Osprey program?"

Don't be misled by "cadre already in place at KABQ"...they have been selected, but are here working syllabus issues, flying/validating the sim, etc. They still need to go to New River MCAS and fly the "slick" for the first time...they are not sitting around here qual'd ready to fly.

They need to get qual'd over the next several months, the first CV-22 should get here a couple of months later, and pipe studs a year out, give or take.

Rainman posed: "A couple of the helo guys kept saying they absolutely needed the ability to put mavericks and hellfires and JDAM and WCMD and a gun turret like the AH-64 on it. The contractors kept saying it would be too heavy if they did that. Anyone know where that ended up?"

Certainly that would have made it more "special" but indeed, performance did not allow it. There is still the debate about a tail 50 cal or 25mm gun, but that turret idea is definitely out. The bird was designed for 2 in the cockpit, but USAF will go down the road like Pavelows, with a third seat (FE) in the cockpit.

Performance specs are curious. All over the web, you can find specs for the "V-22" but never the CV-22. I suspect the USAF is still trying to determine how much they want to overload the basic aircraft weight. Boeing says max vertical T/O wt is 47500 and rolling T/O is 55000...Kirtland lists the "Maximum takeoff weight" as 60500. We don't even own one and we've added 10 percent...my bet is much, much more.

Boeing lists the max altitude for HOGE as 14200 ft. NO WAY...IMPOSSIBLE. Maybe that instead of testing that at max gross weight, or even "mission" gross weight, they did it with one gallon of gas, one 95 lb pilot, etc.

The V-22 (Boeing source) is 33140 empty, 55000 max rolling takeoff, with 12300 total engine SHP, and a tranny for 9940 SHP. The H-53E (Sikorsky source) is 33373 empty, and 73500 max, with 14250 total engine SHP, and a tranny for 13140 SHP.

These are shown for fun only...remember, the Osprey is not billed as a "replacement helicopter" it is a speed/range niche aircraft.

If I needed to go 300 miles, I'd like an Osprey...if I needed to plant a zillion Marines from a ship to an beach 25 miles away, I'd take a H-53E.

[Guest SuperStallionIP]

Two different machines with two different missions. MV/CV-22 for hauling troops. It has limited externals capability, but not much more than one HMMWV or equivalent weight. It can't do that on a full bag of fuel either. The 53E's primary mission is assault transport of heavy weapons, equipment, and supplies, mostly externally loaded. Secondary mission is hauling troops, etc, etc. The Osprey is replacing the CH-46E and CH-53D. I might put in a transition package on the next board in December. I love flying the 53E but it would be cool to try something different while I have the chance. The nice thing about the aircraft is that the software allows you to put in a flight plan, and the aircraft will do the rest including the takeoff and landing. Not necessary but the capability is there.

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Originally posted by BigIron:

The nice thing about the aircraft is that the software allows you to put in a flight plan, and the aircraft will do the rest including the takeoff and landing.

Pardon me.

I think they can do that with the Predator, too. The Predator is even nicer because you don't even have to get into the aircraft.

What happened to BigIron...I thought he was old school. Did someone steal his login info?

[Guest pavesooner]

From AFPC web site: "CV-22 assignments out of SUPT-H will not start until FY08 or FY09."

[FourFans]

I've been hunting for info, but no success. Any word if they'll be letting slick pilots crosstrain into the program? Just trying to get some lead on the options.

[M2]

I am currently at JSOU, and hope to get out to see the CV-22 arrive. Should be quite a show...

Cheers! M2

CV-22 starts new era for special operations

by Jamie Haig

16th SOW Public Affairs

11/15/2006 - HURLBURT FIELD, Fla -- The 8th Special Operations Squadron will welcome its 22nd aircraft when the CV-22 arrives at Hurlburt Field, with a new mission, a new location and a new venture for the special operations world.

The CV-22's mission will be to execute infiltration and exfiltration, and resupply missions to be able to globally respond and to have rapid mobility while leaving a small footprint.

"The self-deploying capability of the CV-22 enables us to respond to any mission immediately," said Lt. Col. Eric Hill, 8th SOS director of operations. "We can just up and fly as-is with no tear down or transport necessary."

The aircraft's speed will allow it to reach destinations worldwide much quicker and will prove to be a big asset when performing infiltration, exfiltration or resupply operations. When in airplane mode, the aircraft is 75 percent quieter than other rotary wing aircraft, which will be beneficial when heading into unknown territories.

The 8th SOS is positioning the squadron to be able to have a timely response to any mission any where. The CV-22 doesn't need to be taken apart to fit on a C-5 to be transported to the location in need. It has the capacity to fly long ranges before refueling, and it can reach speeds of more than 275 mph.

"We don't need a runway because we can land vertically," Colonel Hill said. "It's a very agile, versatile aircraft that will allow us to do a rapid landing or take off anywhere."

The aircraft will also require a smaller equipment and maintenance package, unlike the older aircraft in Air Force Special Operations Command.

"As we globally respond, we're not tied to a huge logistics trail," said Lt. Col. Darryl Sheets, 8th SOS assistant director of operations. "It has a high altitude capability and speed, allowing us to do the mission under the cover of night."

The concept for the CV-22 was born from the Eagle Claw disaster in 1980. The need for an aircraft to cover long distances quickly with few refuelings, have the ability to convert to helicopter mode and remain as quiet as possible was in need then, as it is now.

During the first year with the new aircraft, the 8th SOS will be building up the squadron to handle the capabilities set before them. The crews and other squadron members will be working with other special operations forces to define and fine-tune the tactics, techniques, and procedures and potentials that lie ahead.

"This is where it starts, when the plane is delivered," Colonel Hill said. "The other crews are in training, and initial operating capabilities are being defined."

In the very near future, the 8th SOS will begin working with other squadrons and special operations forces on how the CV-22 can be best utilized.

"We're going to get out with teams and see how they want to use it (CV-22) and how it can help them complete their missions," Colonel Sheets said.

The squadron will not only work with internal teams but will interact with forces Department of Defense-wide, conducting exercises with other assets.

"We haven't begun to explore the possibilities that are out there," Colonel Hill said. "Aside from our primary mission, we can handle personnel recovery, resupply and psychological operations, too."

The 8th SOS has plans to work closely with the 9th SOS, 15th SOS and the 73rd SOS on refueling and to eventually work with other tankers, giving them a strategic advantage and enabling them to go global.

"Right now, we're conducting different refueling tests with the 9th, 15th and 73rd SOS, trying out different pods and working to train our crews and theirs on how to refuel this aircraft," Colonel Sheets said.

While the squadron is gearing up for the arrival of the CV-22, they might be short on manpower and space, but the one thing they don't lack is motivation.

"We've got all fields of experience in our squadron," Colonel Hill said. "We're all driving for the same goal - getting the capability right. At the end of the day, it's the people in the program that make the difference."

[Zepplin559]

They did a performance at the Nellis Air Show last weekend that was pretty sweet and they hadit as a static display. It was a pretty cool deal. It certainly put on a hell of a show.

[Toro]

I'm doing a paper on the Osprey and have found a ton of information so far. Most of it leads me to believe that the plane is actually quite a capable aircraft and has great potential - despite it's checkered past. I'd be interested in the people's opinion on the aircraft. No offense, but please don't post if you have no flying experience and your opinion stems completely from reading Janes, and I don't need responses from people whose knowledge of the airplane consists of "it's crashed a couple times and it's dangerous."

Also, if you know of any links that would be good sources, please post those as well. Thanks in advance.

[Guest SpectrePilot]

Do a search here on baseops and you'll probably find my opinion stated a time or two already.

Three problems: very small cargo space, no practical spot to mount a gun (for offense, defense, or infil-coverage), and finally: can't pressurize!!

WTFO?? So this thing may be capable of flying above the threat, but it can't lest the snake-eaters in back go hypoxic... sheesh.

[Squatch]

Originally posted by Toro:

... and I don't need responses from people whose knowledge of the airplane consists of "it's crashed a couple times and it's dangerous."

Three problems: very small cargo space, no practical spot to mount a gun (for offense, defense, or infil-coverage), and finally: can't pressurize!!

WTFO?? So this thing may be capable of flying above the threat, but it can't lest the snake-eaters in back go hypoxic... sheesh. [/QB]

Thanks for the positive contribution.

Yes the cargo space is small compared to other platforms. It was not designed to haul the amount/size of cargo 130's were. It will haul what it needs and land where 130's can't.

Your point on the gun is incorrect. There are a couple of solutions being worked right now that will provide coverage.

As for the lack of pressurization and the customers getting hypoxic - portable oxygen for the customers takes care of it.

[Stuck]

What does one of those go for anyways cost wise?

-Stuck

[Guest SuperStallionIP]

Originally posted by Stuck:

What does one of those go for anyways cost wise?

-Stuck

About $71 million per copy is the last figure I have seen quoted.

[M2]

Here's a quick vid...

That's about all it did before landing and shutting down. A second Osprey landed on the northern part of the field and shut down as well.

Cheers! M2

[M2]

The "official" USAF cost...

The CV-22 currently costs $89.1 million. However, cost reduction initiatives and a multi-year procurement contract is expected to significantly reduce that price. :rolleyes:

The Air Force plans on buying 50 CV-22s from now until 2017.

(Source)

Cheers! M2

[ 16. November 2006, 18:59: Message edited by: M2 ]

[Guest croftfam]

It isn't feasible to FR/rappel/or even really hoist teams/individuals with it. The downwash it creates is crazy compared to even the 47. I'm not sure of it's mission, but only know it can't come close to replacing everything the 53 did. Infils/Exfils of not too large teams is about it, and only when it can land.

Would not ever want to fly it.

EDIT:spelling

[ 17. November 2006, 02:36: Message edited by: JorryFright21 ]

[M2]

Oddly enough, before the Ospreys arrived, they did a demo of a team rappelling from a pair of MH-53s. Considering the limitation of not being able to rappel out the side doors due to the extreme downdraft of the propellers (as I have read, I do not have any firsthand knowledge of this), it makes you wonder if someone was trying to make a point!

Still, I have to say it was an interesting entrance...

Cheers! M2

[Squatch]

Originally posted by JorryFright21:

It isn't feasible to FR/rappel/or even really hoist teams/individuals with it. The downwash it creates is crazy compared to even the 47. I'm not sure of it's mission, but only know it can't come close to replacing everything the 53 did. Infils/Exfils of not too large teams is about it, and only when it can land.

Would not ever want to fly it.

EDIT:spelling

Wrong again on the Fast rope/hoist. Aircrew reports are that it is an extremely stable hover platform for AIEs. During the last set of FR tests it got an outstanding review from a PJ. The test was conducted in an urban enivronment and included rooftop FRs.

It has been said time and again when this comes up - The CV-22 is not a replacement for the MH-53 mission.

[Guest croftfam]

Yeah, okay, they've done it a couple of times. Does that mean it's safe? The downwash from it is insane. The hover can be as stable as a rock on the ground, but that doesn't change the fact of the downwash.

If you think that's a hoist, then they must be using some crazy strong hoist because the limits on virtually all hoist are 600#'s, and I haven't seen a hoist with 4 hooks yet. At the moment the name of the method they are using escapes me. I'm sure someone else here knows it. If not, I'll get back to you.

And yes, I know it is not a replacement for the 53. Another reason I would not want to fly it. The 53's mission was good, this is going to be a mission that they are going to make up just to justify buying the thing. I'm by no means the authority on this, just my opinion, but it will be interesting to see what they do with it, especially once the 47 comes online.

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Originally posted by Squatch:

Thanks for the positive contribution.

Yes the cargo space is small compared to other platforms. It was not designed to haul the amount/size of cargo 130's were. It will haul what it needs and land where 130's can't.

Your point on the gun is incorrect. There are a couple of solutions being worked right now that will provide coverage.

As for the lack of pressurization and the customers getting hypoxic - portable oxygen for the customers takes care of it.

Yeah, right.

They have known about these LIMFACS for years and still have no solution.

The pressurization LIMFAC alone is insane.

[craino21]

The big LIMFAC with pressurization is the wing swiveling mechanism. All the gizmos to get the wing to swivel 90 degrees for ship board ops create a big air leak that was a PITA to pressurize... that was the part that would have been too heavy if it was air tight. And squatch, nobody expects it to carry a dozen abrams tanks, but it would be nice if it could carry ANY SOF vehicles bigger than a quad. I've heard they're looking into buying new vehicles based on the WWII Jeeps (at an asinine cost) because they're narrow enough to fit. That's ridiculous.

[Guest Rainman A-10]

Originally posted by Safe&Clear:

Shape of fuselage has nothing to do with pressurization.

Really? I thought it had a lot to do with it. I've heard people saying it matters and I just believed them because they were engineers.

[Guest cbire880]

Originally posted by Rainman A-10:

Really? I thought it had a lot to do with it. I've heard people saying it matters and I just believed them because they were engineers.

[Guest SpectrePilot]

I see your point on shape, but come on-- she ain't THAT boxy. STS.

And I'm pretty sure the old Sherpa (pictured above), pressurizes.

Anyway, we're not talking the kind of differential required in an airliner at 40+ thousand feet. Just enough for the high teens or twenties would suffice.

Whoever mentioned the "wings pivoting" is also wrong. Only the engines swivel-- and there's all kinds of fuel and hydraulic lines running through that joint (the latter under tremendous pressure-- 5000psi if I recall!) No reason there couldn't be bleed air lines as well.