# Interesting take on the MV-22



## DA SWO (Aug 5, 2014)

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-v-22-is-the-future-d47e08d57e56

I’ve been a military assault support pilot for almost two decades. I’d rather fly into combat in the MV-22B Osprey than any other rotorcraft in the world.

Considering the aircraft’s reputation in some quarters, that statement might be surprising.

The usual critics have always been skeptical of the aircraft, but some of its more vehement critics have been helicopter pilots.

That’s no surprise. Like the Luddites of 19th-century England, people with a stake in current technologies often try to tear down the new techs that could make old systems obsolete.

Before the tank proved itself during the latter days of World War I, many soldiers were skeptical. Prior to that war, horse cavalry was the elite branch in most militaries.

Horses were a proven “technology.” Cavalry had refined their tactics over centuries. How could some mechanized abomination replace them? Early tanks broke down frequently and even endangered their crews. But with development, the tank was able to do things that no other weapon—and certainly no horse—ever could do.

(click on the link to get the full story)


----------



## busdriver (Sep 4, 2014)

If the discussion is about helo vs tiltrotor, drop all the discussion about brownout landings (modern helos have hover cues as well) or anything about technology at all.  The core of the discussion is about hover performance and defensive weapons fans versus speed, range and altitude capability (without touching on DCS issues with long unpressurized flight profiles).  The tilt rotor brings some serious advantages, but it has it's warts as well.


----------



## Johca (Sep 4, 2014)

Each air frame has its own unique flight characteristics and flight envelope that determines what it can and cannot bring to the fight.   If this were not true there would be no reason to complain, whine, bitch, and moan about the demise of the A-10.   The V-22 Achilles heel are several.    The propulsion that has larger than normal propeller diameter and smaller hovering rotor diameter for the size and weight being hovered and landed increases both its radar signature and its heat signature.   This increased signature means its an easier target for heat seeking and radar guided missiles.  An aircraft taken down by a direct hit went away during WWII when proximity fuses where developed for air defensive artillery and missiles.   Theses weapons are all designed to put flack (sort of like a claymore) and create a high pressure shock wave to take out an aircraft much in the same way depth charges sink a sub.  The V-22 was designed more for doing most of the distance high and fast rather than low level and its low level profile is not as low as the HH-53s are capable of doing in any sort of hilly or mountainous terrain.

It has a less forgiving transition into and out of hover transition flight characteristics than a helicopter which is the flight envelope in adverse weather and combat where the most unexpected and undesirable events, circumstance, and situation are encountered when going in tactically to a hot LZ.  

The V-22 is very expensive to maintain and its sortie ready rates from what little info is put out into the public arena are dismal compared to helicopters.  Helicopters do have a proven (Korea, Vietnam, USS Mayaguez incident, War on Terror) can take a licking from ground to air hits from small arms (.50 Cal, .30 cal, 7.62,) and still be flying record the V-22 has yet to demonstrate on any combat or combat support sortie.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 4, 2014)

Hey, from a "passenger" standpoint, I loved Phrogs...I rode on 46s everywhere for six years, much more often than slicks or 53s but that was 35-40 years ago. And the 46s are still going. But it's good that they're being phased out. And I'd say that even in front of my winger friends who flew and crewed 46s. The v22s are some seriously badass-looking aircraft, right out of _Starship Troopers--_I'd love to ride on one. And the Marine Corps needed them. They had bugs in the early going, what aircraft doesn't? I suspect tiltrotors and V/STOLs like the AV8 are pretty challenging aircraft to get used to.


----------



## fox1371 (Sep 4, 2014)

My experience with the V22 is limited.  We did conduct a daytime raid in one, and I have to say it wasn't favorable.  We were honestly lucky that we didn't get shot down, as the bad guys had the tools to do so.  It took way to long to get to the ground, as well as back up in the air.  Plenty of better options out there for that specific type of mission.  I see the V22 as a better tool for logistics etc.


----------



## Teufel (Sep 4, 2014)

Johca said:


> Each air frame has its own unique flight characteristics and flight envelope that determines what it can and cannot bring to the fight.   If this were not true there would be no reason to complain, whine, bitch, and moan about the demise of the A-10.   The V-22 Achilles heel are several.    The propulsion that has larger than normal propeller diameter and smaller hovering rotor diameter for the size and weight being hovered and landed increases both its radar signature and its heat signature.   This increased signature means its an easier target for heat seeking and radar guided missiles.  An aircraft taken down by a direct hit went away during WWII when proximity fuses where developed for air defensive artillery and missiles.   Theses weapons are all designed to put flack (sort of like a claymore) and create a high pressure shock wave to take out an aircraft much in the same way depth charges sink a sub.  The V-22 was designed more for doing most of the distance high and fast rather than low level and its low level profile is not as low as the CH-53s are capable of doing in any sort of hilly or mountainous terrain.
> 
> It has a less forgiving transition into and out of hover transition flight characteristics than a helicopter which is the flight envelope in adverse weather and combat where the most unexpected and undesirable events, circumstance, and situation are encountered when going in tactically to a hot LZ.
> 
> The V-22 is very expensive to maintain and its sortie ready rates from what little info is put out into the public arena are dismal compared to helicopters.  Helicopters do have a proven (Korea, Vietnam, USS Mayaguez incident, War on Terror) can take a licking from ground to air hits from small arms (.50 Cal, .30 cal, 7.62,) and still be flying record the V-22 has yet to demonstrate on any combat or combat support sortie.


 
The MV22 has some crazy legs though.  It's an ideal ship to shore platform which is what it was originally designed for.  I'm a big fan.  The Marine Corps now has a strong utility platform in the CH-53, a multi use MV22 and the venerable Huey and Cobra combo.  Like you said, every aircraft has its pros and cons.  For us in the Marine Corps, you can't beat the combat radius of that air craft as a troop and equipment carrier.  They are working on ways to give it some teeth which is one of it's other vulnerabilities.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 4, 2014)

The 46 was the ship to shore in the past, I flew off LPHs on them number of times. From what I've read the mv22 can more than handle the tasks formerly performed by the 46. That's the point, isn't it? It wasn't expected to be a gun platform any more than the helo it was replacing...and IIRC the 46 had, at best, two M2s, port & starboard.


----------



## Teufel (Sep 4, 2014)

Ocoka One said:


> The 46 was the ship to shore in the past, I flew off LPHs on them number of times. From what I've read the mv22 can more than handle the tasks formerly performed by the 46. That's the point, isn't it? It wasn't expected to be a gun platform any more than the helo it was replacing...and IIRC the 46 had, at best, two M2s, port & starboard.


 
 The issue is that it far outpaces it's escort aircraft.  The CH 46 was escorted by Cobras.  Cobras don't have the legs or speed to keep up with the MV-22 so it can make huge legs but arrives without escorts unless you time some fixed wing to meet up with them at the LZ.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 4, 2014)

Thanks, I get it now.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 4, 2014)

Johca said:


> Each
> The V-22 is very expensive to maintain and its sortie ready rates from what little info is put out into the public arena are dismal compared to helicopters.  Helicopters do have a proven (Korea, Vietnam, USS Mayaguez incident, War on Terror) can take a licking from ground to air hits from small arms (.50 Cal, .30 cal, 7.62,) and still be flying record the V-22 has yet to demonstrate on any combat or combat support sortie.



You had me till this last bit, maybe your information is not very current, but I know some guys who got into pretty terrible ground contact in a couple of CV-22's and they all walked away, well not walked as many were injured. The Bird can run on one engine, and this one did.  

Not saying it is a great bird but almost all the currently serving guys ,MARSOC and SEALs, had nothing but positive things to say last time I was with them.


----------



## busdriver (Sep 4, 2014)

The Sudan NEO proved the V-22 is definitely a survivable aircraft.  It doesn't change the fact that it has some pretty gross limitations.  Do the advantages outweigh the limitations?  In some missions yes, in some no; it's a compromise between competing requirements like any design.  I think a large part of the problem is people try to ram it into the helo shaped hole, when the V-22 shaped peg just doesn't fit, it's a different animal.


----------



## pardus (Sep 4, 2014)

My ignorance has me curious, is it an airplane or a helo to fly? Or completely it's own deal?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Sep 5, 2014)

Depends on the airspeed. Further up you get in airspeed, the more the standard control surfaces and wing lift take precedence over cyclic/collective style control and at some point is actually locked out for full aircraft style operation.  Basically it's like a harrier where the vast majority of the flight profile is accomplished in standard aircraft control and configuration, but you have the option of conducting VTOL operations as desired. 

Good read about it without all of the shit that typically gets thrown around about the bird:  http://www.verticalmag.com/features/features_article/20112-flying-the-v-22.html


----------



## pardus (Sep 5, 2014)

Thanks.


----------



## Teufel (Sep 5, 2014)

Ranger Psych said:


> Depends on the airspeed. Further up you get in airspeed, the more the standard control surfaces and wing lift take precedence over cyclic/collective style control and at some point is actually locked out for full aircraft style operation.  Basically it's like a harrier where the vast majority of the flight profile is accomplished in standard aircraft control and configuration, but you have the option of conducting VTOL operations as desired.
> 
> Good read about it without all of the shit that typically gets thrown around about the bird:  http://www.verticalmag.com/features/features_article/20112-flying-the-v-22.html


 
Exactly.  It's an in-betweener.   It takes off and lands like a helicopter (although you can land it on a runway in airplane mode if you want) but flys like a plane.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 5, 2014)

Why not take some of those mv22s and make them gun platform escort ships so they can keep up. We've made c-47s, Hueys, Herkies, 53's & 60s into gunships, why not one or two mv22s from each squadron? I'm not saying put rocket pods on the wings, but maybe a GAU chin mount, a couple of M134D miniguns on the sides...you could mount one on the back ramp, couldn't you? Problem solved.


----------



## BloodStripe (Sep 5, 2014)

Ocoka One said:


> Why not take some of those mv22s and make them gun platform escort ships so they can keep up. We've made c-47s, Hueys, Herkies and 53's into gunships, why not one or two mv22s from each squadron? I'm not saying put rocket pods on the wings, but maybe a GAU chin mount, a couple of M134D miniguns on the sides...you could mount one on the back ramp, couldn't you? Problem solved.



http://www.janes.com/article/33890/...-gunship-variant-osprey-marines-show-interest


----------



## BloodStripe (Sep 5, 2014)

http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2014/02/how-do-you-make-v-22-into-gunship.html

"Well, the MV-22 was suppose to have defensive weaponry added to it...robust defensive weapons as part of its package before it was to be allowed to enter service.  Conway was pretty adamant about that...the current Commandant doesn't care as much."


----------



## Gunz (Sep 5, 2014)

SOTGWarrior said:


> http://www.janes.com/article/33890/...-gunship-variant-osprey-marines-show-interest


 
Good find, bro, thanks. (Dammit.)

If they wanted to make it work they could in spite of the cost of modifications. It solves your escort problem, too slow for jets, too fast for helos. And until you get the gunship varient ramp up some of the Corps' KC-130s with hellfires and GAUs and use them for escort. They already have the Harvest Hawk platform for overwatch; how hard would it be to modify that for escort tasks?


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 5, 2014)

Ocoka One said:


> Good find, bro, thanks. (Dammit.)
> 
> If they wanted to make it work they could in spite of the cost of modifications. It solves your escort problem, too slow for jets, too fast for helos. And until you get the gunship varient ramp up some of the Corps' KC-130s with hellfires and GAUs and use them for escort. They already have the Harvest Hawk platform for overwatch; how hard would it be to modify that for escort tasks?


Depends if you are just adding "guns" or if you want to put a chin gun, rocket pods, hellfires, etc.
The physical modifications (waist guns for example) are "cheap"
The other options require modifications to the computer software, and the costs go up quickly.


----------



## 0699 (Sep 5, 2014)

I was a very small part of the Marine Corps' OT&E team for the V-22.  I assisted the Comm/Nav Systems officer (Major Gruber) with troubleshooting some comms issues and coordinating comms with ground forces.  I flew on it multiple times in 2000.  I was scheduled to be in Arizona for the crash.  I knew Maj Gruber pretty well; unfortunately, our last conversation was as close to an arguement as any other conversation we'd had.

I think the V-22 is an impressive airplane.  I think, like any new technology, it has issues that need to be sorted out before it's 100%.  In the Navy and MC flight communities, every a/c type has what is called the NATOPS Manual.  The NATOPS Manuals have notes, cautions, and warnings in them.  An old MC aviation saying is that all of the notes, cautions, and warnings are written in blood.  I believe many people have forgotten (or don't know) how many died when fixed and rotary wing technology were in their infancy.  The V-22 is neither, so there are a lot of new lessons that need to be learned.



Teufel said:


> The MV22 has some crazy legs though.  It's an ideal ship to shore platform which is what it was originally designed for.  I'm a big fan.  The Marine Corps now has a strong utility platform in the CH-53, a multi use MV22 and the venerable Huey and Cobra combo.  Like you said, every aircraft has its pros and cons.  For us in the Marine Corps, you can't beat the combat radius of that air craft as a troop and equipment carrier.  They are working on ways to give it some teeth which is one of it's other vulnerabilities.


 
My first deployment to Iraq, it took 3 hours to fly from AA to KV on a 53.  My second tour, on the V-22, it took 45 minutes.



SOWT said:


> Depends if you are just adding "guns" or if you want to put a chin gun, rocket pods, hellfires, etc.
> The physical modifications (waist guns for example) are "cheap"
> The other options require modifications to the computer software, and the costs go up quickly.


 
And it isn't a matter of "slaping on a turret/chin gun/rocket pod".  There are a lot of flight effects that have to go into the equation.  Lots of math and stuff.


----------



## busdriver (Sep 5, 2014)

Side firing guns on the v-22 are problematic dude to proprotor arc and severe downwash in a hover, unless you're talking side fire like a gunship.  The turret thing is terrible thanks to limited field of view of the sensor and quite frankly, it's 7.62 so what's the point?  Forward firing ordnance is probably less problematic, but I'm curious about G limits and accelerated stall speeds when pulling out of a diving weapons delivery.  The article by McKinney is a great read, I'm curious if they've explored using slight nacelle tilt to augment lift in a tight turn at lower speeds.


----------

