Cancel The Osprey

[tomahawk6]

Classic example of a program that has been mismanaged but no one has the guts to cancel. So here we are $18b and counting. The Osprey is less capable than the venerable Chinook. The Marines do alot of things right, the Osprey wasnt one of them.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1720536.php

 

[Korus]

The Osprey is less capable than the venerable Chinook

That peaked my interest...

From the engineering standpoint (as an engineer), I really like the Osprey, it's one heck of a neat concept to go from helicopter mode to forward flight airplane mode. This allows the Osprey to go much faster than the Chinook (Hereafter all numbers I present are what I've been able to find for the CH-47D model), or any other helicopter with a 275kt cruise and 340kt maximum speed. (1). This is compared to the Chinook at 170Kt maximum speed (2) and the worlds fastest helicopter, the Westland Lynx at the world record speed of 400 Km/H (3) (roughly 216.5 knots). That was pretty much the main purpose of having the tilt-rotor.. So you can get both the helicopter type flight, as well as faster cruising flight in 'airplane mode'

The Chinook has a service ceiling of 20,000 ft (4) while the Osprey has a maximum service ceiling of 25,000 ft. (5)

The Chinook has a maximum range of about 230 NM with 50,000lbs weight (that's the overall weight of the cargo and airframe)(6) and what I'm led to believe is the unloaded range of 385 NM? (4), the Osprey 220NM with 8,000 lbs cargo, 430NM with 6,000 lbs cargo, 2,100 NM unrefueled and unloaded (7) (this comparison is pretty sketchy and hard to find better numbers for... so see if you can find better numbers...) (edit: several other websites claim 2,100-2,500 NM is the range with one in air re-fueling(1))

Cargo capacity is about 26,000 external for the chinook (3) and 15,000 external for the Osprey (5)

So, judging off these numbers, for pure heavy lift, the Chinook obviously out-does the Osprey, while the Osprey out-does the Chinook in speed and range...

The sole biggest downside to the Osprey, though, is the human cost involved in developing it.. The inherently unstable switch from helicopter to airplane mode is a huge challenge to overcome, and the aircraft already has a bad track record despite all the redundancy and safety mechanisms... That's where I come in as an engineer again and have to say that losing lives for the development of a new type of aircraft is not worth it... Something like the eagle-eye(8), on the other hand is a great way to perfect the technology without risking people's lives...

Now just a note, take all the numbers with a grain of salt.. Different websites sometimes have different numbers, I tried to stay as objective as possible. One thing to note is that performance changes entirely depending on altitude, temperature, type of mission, etc, etc, etc, so it's really hard to get good numbers for comparison.  If any of the rotary guys lurking on the board can clarify/elaborate/fix, it would be appreciated.

Edit: All this being said, I also really like the Chinook.. ;P
Also, of interest is this article on the ups and downs of the Osprey program: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.07/osprey.html


Sorry for also jumping around with so many sources, once again, not all websites had all the numbers I was looking for.
(1) http://www.eustis.army.mil/360/Helicopters/V-22.HTM
(2) http://www.rotaryaction.com/history.html
(3) http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/h-47.htm
(4) http://www.ch47.org/chinook.htm
(5) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22-specs.htm
(6) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ch-47d-specs.htm
(7) http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/osprey/specs.html
(8) http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/eagle-eye.htm

 

[Armymatters]

The nice thing about the Osprey is indeed its speed. That means that the Osprey can get in faster and be more of a surprise at an LZ, and when it has offloaded its load, it can quickly zoom right out of the area. In airplanes these days, armour is not the best way to protect them against ground fire (your just asking to get shot at), speed is. Your not going to hanging around when there is ground fire all around you if your a helo pilot anyways... you want to off load the helo as quickly as you can, and get out of there as fast as you can.

Yes, I am aware that the Osprey is technically unarmed. But given any competent crew chief with a welding torch, some metal piping, some hinges, and a protractor and he can build you a side door gun mount for a medium MG that will fit nicely in the door, folds out of the way when not in use, and won't damage the airplane.

 

[Good2Golf]

The two are not really comparable in the context of how each aircraft is (or would be) operationally employed.

The basic issue is that Osprey was meant to bring in troops from the sea base to an in-land theatre primarily as part of the greater MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit) concept of sea-basing operations and maritime/amphibious force projection.  As an aside, the employment over distances that are beyond normal helicopter operations also makes the Osprey well-suited to CSAR operations supported by the USAF.  Osprey was never intended to be any kind of intra-theatre lifter like the Chinook is, thus its strength of rapid insertion (time and space wise, not any faster on short final into the LZ) is what the Marines were looking for.  It was assumed that the operational requirement to have the naval/marine task force stay offshore further and project soldiers in-land farther than with the venerable CH-46E Sea Knight validated the time and resources to design, develop and build the MV-22.

In a nutshell, Osprey is best suited to situations where time and space require troops and moderate levels of provisions to be inserted, while Chinook is clearly a persistent (in that it doesn't leave the theatre) heavy lifting capability.

Cheers,
Duey

 

[dapaterson]

Interestingly, a Canadian aircraft with the same flight profile was built in the 1960s or 70s - take off like a helicopter, fly like a fixed-wing aircraft.  It never went into production.  I believe there's one on display at the air museum in Ottawa, and I'm certain that some Army.Ca'er will post more details.

I suspect that no one bothered to look at the Canadian experience prior to developing the Osprey though...

 

[Korus]

That's the Canadair CL-84 Dynavert... http://www.aafo.com/news/old/dynavert.htm

The two methods for VTOL were fairly different, though. The CL-84 tilts the entire wing then uses different schemes to move the aircraft (such as differential pitch on the propellers to cause roll, ailerons became yaw control in VTOL mode, and pitch controlled by the angle of the motors). The Osprey uses full cyclical control on it's prop-rotors in helicopter mode, in effect making it something like a sideways Chinook...

It's interesting to note that the CL-84 was trialed by the US military as well as the Canadian military, but no one thought it was that useful of a concept..... How times change..
Also of note, 2 of the 3 flown CL-84's crashed due to mechanical failure..

 

[Armymatters]

Problem with the old Dynavert was that the tilting mechanism took up a significant chunk of the interior, meaning that there was no room for cargo...

 

[Korus]

Problem with the old Dynavert was that the tilting mechanism took up a significant chunk of the interior, meaning that there was no room for cargo...

That's good to know.. Just a slight problem with the design.. 

 

[Steel Badger]

Actually the Dynavert could carry a rifle section as far as I can recall

Art Majoor sent me the data at one point, I'll dig about and see if I can find it.


SB

 

[couchcommander]

I remember hearing that at one point as well, thought it wasn't from a_majoor. I can't recall where.

 

[geo]

yawn.....
military projects and boondogles take up a life of their own.
Shades of the Sgt York weapons platform that couldn't shoot straight
shades of the ADATS,
shades of the MGS(?)
shades of ....................