the v22 osprey good or bad
- Thread starter joeroot
- Start date
F-15 Eagle
New Member
This should go in the air force section but I think the Osprey will be a great aircraft. Most of the flaws have already been fixed and it will serve us well into the future.
I have mixed feelings about the Osprey. I think it's a neat aircraft with unique capabilities. I'm sure the pilots are singing it's praises but it's not often you will find pilots that don't sing the praises of whatever it is they are flying. 
My opinion is that it does not have the true capability to be a vertical lift tactical aircraft. For getting Marines off a ship and onto the beach and beyond at great distances it can't be beat. That is in my opinion, where it's one and only advantage lies. I don't recall the precise altitude now but I believe 3500 feet AGL is the minimum safe altitude for autorotational landing. 3500 feet AGL is very high in a tactical environment for a slow mover IMHO. Yes it has dual engines and a dual engine failure is unlikely, but not altogether rare in rotory wing aviation and there are plenty of Apaches and Blackhawks that have had to execute auto's over the years.
I think vertical lift aircraft should be staged within 15 minutes of the FEBA, that's roughly 15 nautical miles give or take and the additonal speed Osprey offers doesn't make a signifcant difference at those ranges plus it takes longer to kick the tires and light the fires than traditional helicopters do so I don't see it as a successful bird to use for a QRF. Never mind operating beyond the FEBA, where I believe the Osprey isn't well suited primarily due to it's inability to safely auto at low level. It takes a great deal more time to transition from forward fligh to vertical lift flight than a standard helicopter so anything resembling an air assault would appear to be very slow motion in contrast to big dumb helicopters.
Ultimately for a utility military aircraft, it just doesn't seem to be utilitarian enough for me.
My opinion is that it does not have the true capability to be a vertical lift tactical aircraft. For getting Marines off a ship and onto the beach and beyond at great distances it can't be beat. That is in my opinion, where it's one and only advantage lies. I don't recall the precise altitude now but I believe 3500 feet AGL is the minimum safe altitude for autorotational landing. 3500 feet AGL is very high in a tactical environment for a slow mover IMHO. Yes it has dual engines and a dual engine failure is unlikely, but not altogether rare in rotory wing aviation and there are plenty of Apaches and Blackhawks that have had to execute auto's over the years.
I think vertical lift aircraft should be staged within 15 minutes of the FEBA, that's roughly 15 nautical miles give or take and the additonal speed Osprey offers doesn't make a signifcant difference at those ranges plus it takes longer to kick the tires and light the fires than traditional helicopters do so I don't see it as a successful bird to use for a QRF. Never mind operating beyond the FEBA, where I believe the Osprey isn't well suited primarily due to it's inability to safely auto at low level. It takes a great deal more time to transition from forward fligh to vertical lift flight than a standard helicopter so anything resembling an air assault would appear to be very slow motion in contrast to big dumb helicopters.
Ultimately for a utility military aircraft, it just doesn't seem to be utilitarian enough for me.
Germlin29 has here a far better informed opinion than me. The most important point seems to be if it is worth it's money. This is even questionable for the USMC which migh be profit most from the specific strengths but much more so for other countries. A more conventional utilitiarian solution should be a far more sensible approach for almost all.
I think that's the problem with the V-22, other than bringing in troops/equipment and or supplies from a greater stand off range than traditional rotary wing I am at a loss to appreciate anything further that it is uniquely better at, versus a helicopter. It's use in the special forces community is a different discussion, IMHO so I am purposefully leaving out that particular area of use.
What about search and rescue type roles? Picking up a downed pilot, or collecting an injured crewman off a ship? Range and transit speed are both very important there...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #8
very true granted its abilities are unique and it does have its advantages but at the same time i had read an article saying that they were going to put a type of gatlin on them but never got around to that so i would say its limited to transport search and rescue but can only go in a hot zone with heavy support i have to admit its a big target
Last edited:
I'll buy off on an advantage on "some" SAR missions. For actual dustoff missions it seems highly impractical to me for a host of reasons including availability, size of LZ/PZ needed and so forth. 20 years ago there were medivac units that either kept their UH-1 V's versus UH-60 or reverted back to UH-1 V's due to the smaller LZ/PZ they could go into plus you can get a UH-1 in the air alot faster than a Hawk. For example, you can pre-flight a UH-1 and get it into the air about 1/4 the time needed for the UH-60. I've pre-flighted alot of military aircraft and with increased complexity comes increased pre-flight, I would expect pre-flighting a V-22 would take hours but that's purely an educated guess.
As I said earlier I think the V-22 is an impressive machine and there's not a rotor head around that doesn't love the idea of a 300 knot cruise speed. I just can't help but wonder that after 27 years of considering all the great stuff the V-22 should be able to do, the best thing they can come up with is delivering beans and bullets farther faster.
The US Army is the single biggest user of vertical lift in the world. Just one aviation battalion has more aircraft than most of the worlds air forces. If they can't come up with reasons to buy off on V-22 I'm suspect that it's that necessary or that it's presence is going to be an appreciable positive impact on the battlefield.
Again these are my opinions, if I was a Marine V-22 pilot I would probably be telling "me" that I'm full of crap. :nutkick
As I said earlier I think the V-22 is an impressive machine and there's not a rotor head around that doesn't love the idea of a 300 knot cruise speed. I just can't help but wonder that after 27 years of considering all the great stuff the V-22 should be able to do, the best thing they can come up with is delivering beans and bullets farther faster.
The US Army is the single biggest user of vertical lift in the world. Just one aviation battalion has more aircraft than most of the worlds air forces. If they can't come up with reasons to buy off on V-22 I'm suspect that it's that necessary or that it's presence is going to be an appreciable positive impact on the battlefield.
Again these are my opinions, if I was a Marine V-22 pilot I would probably be telling "me" that I'm full of crap. :nutkick
V-22 though capable would be scary to be in if one or both rotors failed. Apparently if one fails it flips upside down before stoving-in, if both fail it drops like a brick then stoves-in! Not sure if it can auto-rotate in the event of an engine failure?
They can auto, but only at fairly high altitude. In all fairness, helicopters have a profile in which autorotations are difficult to impossible to accomplish (typically from 30-200 feet AGL with little or no forward airspeed) however there's little reason to operate in that zone and wiser older pilots avoid it as much as practical. Special exceptions exist of course to include rescue hoist operations as an example.
And what do you think is going to happen to a Chinook if it takes a hit that disables its front, rear or both rotors?
On the V22 it would have to be an entire rotor blade failure - engine failure is guarded against becaus there is a cross shaft that means both rotors can be powered by one engine if need be. I'd be thinking that given its speed advantage -its going to be harder to bring down a V22 than a CH47.
with the increased range of the V-22 it means that the ships can operate further off shore and away from land based missile threats, at keast in the short term.
the idea that any future invasion is going to resemble D-Day ignores the modern missile threat; until that is neutralized by securing a substantial beach/ air head then the landing ships are advantaged by operating outside the missile envelope.
the idea that any future invasion is going to resemble D-Day ignores the modern missile threat; until that is neutralized by securing a substantial beach/ air head then the landing ships are advantaged by operating outside the missile envelope.
hyalitemarine
New Member
V-22
It seems a lot of discussion here about the V-22 centers around two main points. The main points being perceptions of safety & basic utility. To start with the safety issue, the V-22's purpose is to survive in a combat environment & accomplish it's mission. The V-22 has an extremely superior performance envelope over the aircraft in its field, namely the CH-46 & the CH-53. Top speed, CH-46 = 165mph, CH-53 = 196mph, V-22 = 351mph. Range, CH-46 = 184 miles, CH-53 = 540 miles, V-22 = 879 miles. Service Ceiling, CH-46 = 14,000', CH-53 = 16,000', V-22 = 26,000'.
All these performance enhancements for the V-22 equate to a greater likelihood of mission flexibility, success, & survivability. I believe that it cannot be stated enough that the function of the V-22 is to ensure mission success in combat. The V-22 is a safer aircraft because of its greater speed to outpace danger & its greater range & ceiling to outdistance danger. Given these statistics, which vary slightly from model to model, the utilitarian superiority is also clear.
It seems a lot of discussion here about the V-22 centers around two main points. The main points being perceptions of safety & basic utility. To start with the safety issue, the V-22's purpose is to survive in a combat environment & accomplish it's mission. The V-22 has an extremely superior performance envelope over the aircraft in its field, namely the CH-46 & the CH-53. Top speed, CH-46 = 165mph, CH-53 = 196mph, V-22 = 351mph. Range, CH-46 = 184 miles, CH-53 = 540 miles, V-22 = 879 miles. Service Ceiling, CH-46 = 14,000', CH-53 = 16,000', V-22 = 26,000'.
All these performance enhancements for the V-22 equate to a greater likelihood of mission flexibility, success, & survivability. I believe that it cannot be stated enough that the function of the V-22 is to ensure mission success in combat. The V-22 is a safer aircraft because of its greater speed to outpace danger & its greater range & ceiling to outdistance danger. Given these statistics, which vary slightly from model to model, the utilitarian superiority is also clear.
utility and survivability of an individual platform is important but with an American invasion/ intervention fleet likely to consist of one or two LHD at $500 million each and a CVN or two at $1billion each, not to mention cruisers, destoyers and frigates, plus the manpower to run them, the loss of a couple of V-22s is a bargain. 400 miles puts the fleet outside the range of most land based platforms that i am aware of.
As I said earlier the V-22 can put troops, beans and bullets on the ground farther faster, there is no question. That said, as a utility platform I still don't see it as a quantum leap in air mobility particularly considering it's cost, complexity and so forth.
You guys are also boosting it's performance by quite a bit, according to the Navy's public information the Osprey cruises at 241-257 knots, that's actually 277 mph and 295 mph respectively. Mission radius is 242 nm or 484 one way nm. Max speed is actually VNE (velocity not to exceed) which is usually not achievable in level flight (I'd be surprised if this was the sole exception to my personal experience but I guess it's possible).
All of this data of course doesn't tell the entire story because these factoids are based on best performance capability and are not absolutes, but change hourly based upon environmental conditions, load etc. Unless you've got access to the interpolation charts for these aircraft it's hard to really start comparing capabilities beyond knowing the Osprey has a distinct speed advantaged which brings up another point.
250-270 knots is a slow mover. Your not going to outrun any threat at 250 knots. I hope it does a fantastic job for the Marines, they deserve every advantage we can provide and will be happy to change my opinion if the Osprey lives up to it's expectations, I'm just skeptical.
You guys are also boosting it's performance by quite a bit, according to the Navy's public information the Osprey cruises at 241-257 knots, that's actually 277 mph and 295 mph respectively. Mission radius is 242 nm or 484 one way nm. Max speed is actually VNE (velocity not to exceed) which is usually not achievable in level flight (I'd be surprised if this was the sole exception to my personal experience but I guess it's possible).
All of this data of course doesn't tell the entire story because these factoids are based on best performance capability and are not absolutes, but change hourly based upon environmental conditions, load etc. Unless you've got access to the interpolation charts for these aircraft it's hard to really start comparing capabilities beyond knowing the Osprey has a distinct speed advantaged which brings up another point.
250-270 knots is a slow mover. Your not going to outrun any threat at 250 knots. I hope it does a fantastic job for the Marines, they deserve every advantage we can provide and will be happy to change my opinion if the Osprey lives up to it's expectations, I'm just skeptical.
@Gremlin29, I get the feeling that if the Osprey is only being used in a transport role, it's unique capabilities are not being maximized. For its capabilities to be maximized, certain unique modules probably need to be developed. And I mean beyond the spec-ops specific modules for the Osprey.
I'm interested in hearing your opinion/thoughts on the utility of developing the Osprey as an ISR platform (possibly as land or even naval ISR). Is there any other special applications you can think of (like a gunship role)?
Last edited:
I agree with that completely and in fact, you've summed up my thoughts in the least amount of words possible.
This leads me to wonder; the V-22 program has been underway for 20+ years, seems the head shed types would have cooked up some really unique and maybe even game changing ideas for the Osprey prior to it being deployed. It seems at least to me as an outsider that it's more like "hey we've finally got them, now what can we do with them?".
For purely military applications the first question to ask is, what can the V-22 do that no other platform can. It can take off vertically (or do a STOL type take off) and cruise at 250 knots which is roughly 100 knots faster than other traditional VTOL aircraft ie helicopters. Since it's advantage over helicopters disappears when it's deployed forward (ie typical 20 minute sorties in a helicopter, it can sling load 10-20k pounds, respectable but not world beating and it can carry 24 troops, repeatable by a number or existing helicopters. If it was super sonic, I'd say we really have a game changer. Shipborne ops are limited to carriers and amphibious assault ships, going on and off smaller vessels is most likely going to be limited to support spec ops or simply ferrying pax and spare parts which in those cases time is usually not of the essence.
Certainly it could be used in ISR roles but is it particularly suited for that? I can think of a few scenarios, anti-pirate surveilance for example where they might be able to intevene quicker (the speed advantage over helicopters).
It would be great to use in mobile LIC operations, particularly in coastal areas. It could be turned into a mini spectre with a couple of 20mm and some miniguns.
Actually I think the service that really could benefit from the Osprey is the Coast Guard. Using them for SAR and ISR in support of the DEA and so forth, it would be a true assett.
This goes back to what I keep mulling over in my mind, why do we have to work so hard to come up with ways to utilize these bad boys?
Apparently the down-draft of the V22 in the hover is monstrous, not sure I'd want to be a SAR winch-man under that, or some poor punter in the sea being driven under water by the huge amount of downwash?I agree with that completely and in fact, you've summed up my thoughts in the least amount of words possible.
This leads me to wonder; the V-22 program has been underway for 20+ years, seems the head shed types would have cooked up some really unique and maybe even game changing ideas for the Osprey prior to it being deployed. It seems at least to me as an outsider that it's more like "hey we've finally got them, now what can we do with them?".
For purely military applications the first question to ask is, what can the V-22 do that no other platform can. It can take off vertically (or do a STOL type take off) and cruise at 250 knots which is roughly 100 knots faster than other traditional VTOL aircraft ie helicopters. Since it's advantage over helicopters disappears when it's deployed forward (ie typical 20 minute sorties in a helicopter, it can sling load 10-20k pounds, respectable but not world beating and it can carry 24 troops, repeatable by a number or existing helicopters. If it was super sonic, I'd say we really have a game changer. Shipborne ops are limited to carriers and amphibious assault ships, going on and off smaller vessels is most likely going to be limited to support spec ops or simply ferrying pax and spare parts which in those cases time is usually not of the essence.
Certainly it could be used in ISR roles but is it particularly suited for that? I can think of a few scenarios, anti-pirate surveilance for example where they might be able to intevene quicker (the speed advantage over helicopters).
It would be great to use in mobile LIC operations, particularly in coastal areas. It could be turned into a mini spectre with a couple of 20mm and some miniguns.
Actually I think the service that really could benefit from the Osprey is the Coast Guard. Using them for SAR and ISR in support of the DEA and so forth, it would be a true assett.
This goes back to what I keep mulling over in my mind, why do we have to work so hard to come up with ways to utilize these bad boys?