testtest

Army will be getting a replacement for the Blackhawk

David N. said:
I spoke with an Air force crew chief and he says the Osprey got a bad rap. To his knowledge, the Air Force had lost only a single aircraft up to that date. He could not speak to the crashes experienced by the Marine Corps.
Click to expand...
Agreed. My understanding was that that had a lot to do with improper flight training. Once the training aspect was addressed, they have proven to be quite reliable.

Regardless - this isn't an Osprey.
 
David N. said:
I spoke with an Air force crew chief and he says the Osprey got a bad rap. To his knowledge, the Air Force had lost only a single aircraft up to that date. He could not speak to the crashes experienced by the Marine Corps.
Click to expand...
Have a very close friend whose job was to investigate crashes for USAF…which meant they investigated crashes involving “common airframes”.

When I asked about the Osprey, the response was “That’s…political”.

Given, this was 20 or so years ago, but…I doubt the military/industrial complex has changed much.
 
Bear007 said:
So not really knowing much about these aircraft, which one do you think is the best?
Click to expand...
To me - and my opinion is not completely unbiased - Defiant is a better aircraft for the mission. One is an airplane that can land vertically and the other is a helicopter. Helicopters are way more stable at slow speeds like those you would deploy troops from and also don’t need the same amount of space to rotate giant props through their axis. The Valor is basically a fast Osprey with some minor design changes. Besides its sketchy safety record - 9 Marines have been killed in multiple crashes in 2022 alone, not to mention 4 Class A crashes - the Osprey is phenomenally expensive to run and has well documented readiness issues since it came into service. The Defiant physically occupies the same footprint as a Blackhawk, is significantly faster than a Blackhawk (although not as fast as Valor) and while kind of odd looking with its contra-rotating props does not rely on a complex system like a tilt-rotor and should prove to be orders of magnitude more reliable and efficient than Valor.

On a side note, I live a couple of miles from Bell’s facility in Arlington TX and have seen Valor overhead many, many times and it is an impressive, very fast aircraft.
 
The problem with the Osprey was it was too big of a technical risk..... ...that is why it was canceled several times before it every began... ...then after it did get started, Clinton got elected and the Osprey, as well as many other programs, was put at idle for 6 to 8 years, they cut the money but didn't want to see the jobs cut, they litterally gave them just enough money to keep people employed, but not enough for them to do anything to actual make progress on the program...

This resulted in running short of money in test and development, which resulted in some rather dumb decisions in the test program, taking the approach that it is an established helicopter there didn't need all the testing of an entire revolutionary aircraft. That is behind several of the crashes during test and development.

As well, the Osprey, like the F-22 and F-35 made several design choices that push the limits of practical technology to get the desired performance. Things like doubling hydraulic system pressures and electric system voltages, which makes for smaller and lighter actuators and motors. But also makes for more hydraulic and electric system problems as they systems are running at pressures/voltage higher than anything before. That and design was behind one of the test and development crashes.

I knew two of the test pilots that died in two separate crashes, one was the asymmetric vortex ring state crash, the other the hydraulic failure with erroneous indications crash.

The Marine Corps has nearly 3 times as many V-22 as the Air Force, so that is one explanation for the higher crash rate, as well the Marine Corps typical has a higher crash rate than the Air Force in general. I had heard nothing about training problems, other than the typical training teething problems with any new aircraft, which the Marine Corps field before and faster than the Air Force, so they would suffer that initial training teething.

Yes, it was political, two kinds of political. The actual politicians that just want to cut the defense budget, that don't want to replace outdated equipment, that go even more nuts when you try to replace it with even more expensive equipment that is revolutionary instead of just an off the shelf cheap newer conventional helicopter. The other was more it was controversial within the Military and supporters themselves, which ended up in folks dividing up into the Fan Bois/Haters camps.

In a way, the V-22 is a boat/car, it does both fixed wing and helicopter, but like every boat/car, its not a very good boat nor a very good car. So yes, its limited in its fixed wing performance and its helicopter performance. But just like the 1st Gulf War, in the 2nd Gulf Force, the first force to show up in theater in sufficient numbers with sufficient equipment to be a credible force was the Marine Corps (yes, others did show up sooner, but in to small of numbers and too lightly equipped to be any kind serious threat). And the only way the Marine Corps was able to accomplish that in land locked Afghanistan, was with the Osprey. So, harp all you want about it not being such a great helicopter nor fixed wing aircraft, it is able to take off from Amphibious Assault Ships, travel with the speed and range to move the better part of an expeditionary brigade ten times farther than it would be possible with previous conventional helicopters. And then land those forces in unimproved fields like a helicopter.
 
Hammer67 said:
The Army's unwritten motto: "Nothing But Second Best Will Do." 😂
Click to expand...
HansGruber said:
Lowest bidder, baby!
Click to expand...
Back in the day, we used to marvel how Army Helicopters still only had VOR and no TACAN, only one radio, no wiring EMI shielding making them vulnerable to all sorts of shipboard problems. Although that is not their mission, you see the Army having to land on ship every once in a while.

I spoke with an Army test pilot, and what he had to say was very enlightening. The Army has the largest air force in the world, bigger than the Air Force. They have fleets of 2500 to 5000 helicopters depending on their type. Compare that to fleets of 150 to 300 for the Marine Corps and Navy. When you are talking about upgrades and better equipment, its easy for the smaller fleets. Putting a TACAN in Marine helicopters might cost a few million, for the Army, it could cost a $100M and bust the budget.

Cheaper, means more, and one thing about the Army, it needs size, as in big fleets.
 
One thing that worked against the V-22, it was way to big to be doing the first iteration of a tilt rotor. It would have been much smarter to start with a smaller aircraft to field as tilt rotor, like an attack or utility platform. BUT, the Marine Corps wanted the Tilt Rotor and they were long overdue on replacing their medium lift helicopter that had been in service since Vietnam. So they ordered a larger tilt-rotor to replace the larger Medium Lift Platform.

Another thing, the V-280 appears to keep their engine stationary, although still on the wing tip. The V-22 had their engines rotate with the rotors, to simplify the drivetrain. It turned out to be the cause behind a few accidents, and also impractical compromises that reduce mission effectiveness and complicates things.

Rotating the engine, results in any leaks that pooled in the nacelle to drain down into the exhaust and start a fire when the engine is rotated vertical, this caused at least one crash. The rotating engines result in exhaust nozzles being just a few feet off the deck, this damages runways/taxiways, sets fields on fire, damages ships decks and one of the most common minor accidents the aircraft suffers is if on take-off the pilot tilts to one side a bit, he'll jam the exhaust nozzle into the deck and crush it.

So the V-280 probably has more complicated drivetrain to tilt just the rotor but still keeps the engine stationary, but it is probably well worth it, and a lesson learned from the V-22.

Still engines on the wing tips creates a huge polar momentum problem and effects on handling. At the same time, engines in the fuselage, would require even more complicated and less reliable (read as less safe) drivetrain routed through the wings.

Yes, the V-22 had, and I'm sure the V-280 has a cross-connection drive between both engines. Its necessary with tilt rotor, you can't fly on one rotor, you need both rotors turning together to be able to fly and land. So if you lose an engine, the remaining engine has to take over and power both rotors. But having a back-up driveshafts that will only see a few minutes of stress in an emergency is far different than main driveshafts that are under constant use power the rotor.
 
Finally, one last thought.... ....when getting into these big arguments, with everyone just dead set that they knew the future, saying the Osprey is the worlds biggest piece of expensive crap, and others saying its going to revolutionize aviation....

The point, I always made, Some day we are going to wonder how we every got by without tilt rotor aircraft.... ....so whether the Osprey succeeds or not, the technology will improve and tilt rotors will become more practical and reliable...

So I have high hopes for the V-280, may it have half the controversy and politics of the V-22 and twice the practicality and reliability as well......

Love to see what the 4th or 5th generation tilt rotor will be like..... ...as well, an attack tilt rotor....
 
Actually, it won't be a total replacement for the Blackhawk but for will be used specific long-range roles. The UH-60V and UH60M (both being either upgraded or still being built, respectively) for tasks that don't require the capabilities of the V-280.

IMO, the V-280 will need a larger LZ to land in with that wing/rotor span, the Vortex Ring State (VRS) is characteristic of the tilt-rotors (the V-280 is really not a traditional helicopter). While all rotorcraft are susceptible, the side-by-side rotor configuration of V-22 (and all similar tiltrotors) are susceptible to asymmetric onset of Vortex Ring State (VRS), brought on by descending too quickly. The one-rotor-in/one-rotor-out conditions results in large rolling moments and departure from controlled flight (aka crash).

GlobalSecurity.org - Reliable Security Information

www.globalsecurity.org www.globalsecurity.org

Plus, the V-280 will have a much larger radar signature with the rotor/props in a forward position.

And the Defiant X would be able to fly nap-of-the-earth better than the V-280, but hopefully the Raider X will win the FARA contract since that requirement doesn't need the higher-speed that the V-280 will provide.

I always thought the V-280 would be more suited to USMC needs & the Defiant X more suited to US Army needs.

My .02
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top