Army Tilt Rotor program

[Joe_P148]

As many of you know I'm not a fan of the V22. My criticism to tilt rotor is due to it's limitations. But I'm a firm believer that once the technology is perfected, tilt rotor will be rapidly fielded to the Army.

 

Below are some recent articles, what are your thoughts?

 

http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/bell-adds-v-280-tiltrotor-team-army-jmr-demo

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/this-tilt-rotor-aircraft-could-be-the-future-of-the-us-armys-helicopter-fleet-2015-1

[apacheguy]

V-22 can only carry what, like 9 troops? Thus far, no serious armament either. So what mission is that supposed to fill for us? I can see occasional use for maybe 5 or 10 of them armywide, but almost any mission that they can do would probably be better handled by either a helicopter or an airplane.

 

It's not worth the cost, IMO.

[Joe_P148]

V-22 can only carry what, like 9 troops? Thus far, no serious armament either. So what mission is that supposed to fill for us? I can see occasional use for maybe 5 or 10 of them armywide, but almost any mission that they can do would probably be better handled by either a helicopter or an airplane.

 

It's not worth the cost, IMO.

Totally agree with you right now.

 

But, once the technology is improved I.e. Endurance, payload and cost I see the Army going that way.

 

That is, if we use human beings on the ground in future conflicts.

[Velocity173]

Prefer to see the Army go with the S-97. I like the V-280 and the speed / range advantage over the UH-60 is significant but I think tilt rotor has its limitations.

 

The size of the V-280 alone is a restriction. You don't always have the luxury of large LZs to accommodate an aircraft like this. I'd be surprised to see it doing a one wheel landing on some pinnacle. I think there's some vulnerability in an engine / transmission mounted out in the open like that. Unlike a conventional helicopter, you severe the transmission on this thing while the other side is still producing thrust, it's gonna get ugly. I'd be interested in seeing how it does with multiship dust landings as well. I suppose the V-22 doesn't have issues with it but a large air assault, you're talkng a lot of swirling dust and I think some assymetrical thrust issues with all the recirculation going on.

 

I think the S-97 will have a smaller signature on the battlefield in more ways than one (heat, radar, LZ size). I'd be willing to bet operating costs will be less as well. Possibly not the speed or the range of the V-280 but I don't think it'll be significant. Obviously it would have autorotation so capability as well. Only thing I'm really worried about is that prop in the back. If that thing is spinning on landing, the desert is going to shred it up.

 

Of course these are all assumptions and I'm by no means an engineer. What's good is that either aircraft will be a win win situation for the Army. Now if we can only get Bell and Sikorsky to keep costs down so it doesn't become another F-35.

[Joe_P148]

If I remember correctly the Dust and erosion is really bad for the V-22, they have had a lot of performance and maintenance problems out in the desert.

 

I was talking to a 22 maintainer after watching a V-22 demo at the beach, he said they had to change out all the inlet filters on the aircraft after landing on the beach.

That's where the current helo fleet shines, working in dirty and less than favorable conditions. Even our newer aircraft like the M model 60 are seeing issues that the L model didn't have.

 

The other issue I see with tandem right now is the way they are operated. It takes forever to get one of those things on the ground. So if I am RP inbound and taking fire, I have to keep the aircraft stable and commit to the slow landing and hope CAS or my gunners suppress, or break contact. If I recall I haven't seen a V-22 able to maneuver in it's hover profile.

 

Armament is another problem, the V-22 lacks side firing weapon systems due to the location of the engines and rotors. This to me for landing in a hostile area is UNSAT. so If things aren't bad enough doing a slower than normal approach, now you have zero flank security and airborne suppression capability.

 

The S-97 looks great, there could be some issues with landing in uneven terrain due to the ground clearance of the rotor system. I would bet we will probably see a tandem rotor system before we see a tilt rotor system in the Army.

[Cheese]

The V22 was a horrible choice. The lack of armament, too much fly by wire not by pilot, it can hold more than 9 troops lol and it is fast until it comes to landing and taking off. I have flown in one once and please never again. I work with them providing cas from the huey and I have seen them work with the ship. All are just as bad as you expect. Transformers are cool but beyond our technological capabilities to make them combat efficient for now. Let Micheal Bay keep em for now.

[superstallion6113]

The mistake was made decades ago. The Boeing 360 could have been a much better replacement for the CH-46 program than the V-22. I don't see the Army going to a tilt rotor. I also don't see a tilt rotor being able to replace the 60 without giving up some mission capability. It'd be great to supplement helicopters for certain missions where speed is essential and a cargo plane and runway is out of the question.

Edited February 15, 2015 by superstallion6113

[Creep0321]

The V-22 has its place, but as a supplemental aircraft only, in my opinion. I have ridden in them hundreds of times, landings are always sketchy, especially in dust or on ship. They are great for long range insertion however. We did a HAHO insert taking off in North Carolina and jumping into New Mexico, I would not have wanted to do that in a 60. But any sort of landing in a combat environment simply takes too long, and honestly they creep me out.

[Joe_P148]

The V-22 has its place, but as a supplemental aircraft only, in my opinion. I have ridden in them hundreds of times, landings are always sketchy, especially in dust or on ship. They are great for long range insertion however. We did a HAHO insert taking off in North Carolina and jumping into New Mexico, I would not have wanted to do that in a 60. But any sort of landing in a combat environment simply takes too long, and honestly they creep me out.

This brings up my concern with tilt rotor landing to the X or Y or offset, it is slow, loud and has little field of fire and security.

 

Great for expeditionary stuff, HAHO, HALO, long legs. But it just can't perform RP inbound and that's really the most critical portion of the mission.

[Creep0321]

This brings up my concern with tilt rotor landing to the X or Y or offset, it is slow, loud and has little field of fire and security.

 

Great for expeditionary stuff, HAHO, HALO, long legs. But it just can't perform RP inbound and that's really the most critical portion of the mission.

I completely agree.

[apacheguy]

This brings up my concern with tilt rotor landing to the X or Y or offset, it is slow, loud and has little field of fire and security.

 

Great for expeditionary stuff, HAHO, HALO, long legs. But it just can't perform RP inbound and that's really the most critical portion of the mission.

 

Can't static line jump and barely fastrope.

 

Anyone seen it used for rappelling?

[Creep0321]

 

Can't static line jump and barely fastrope.

 

Anyone seen it used for rappelling?

In the USMC we static line jump them. Both low level and DBSL for HAHO. Fast roping does suck though. Rappelling is no fun either, the rotorwash on the deck is intense.

[apacheguy]

In the USMC we static line jump them. Both low level and DBSL for HAHO. Fast roping does suck though. Rappelling is no fun either, the rotorwash on the deck is intense.

 

That's a surprise. The Army wasn't able to certify them for static line due the configuration of the tail (unless things have changed recently and I didn't hear it).

[Joe_P148]

So how do the v-22 guys defend this? I mean, they do realize the Osprey is a piece of junk, right?

[Creep0321]

 

That's a surprise. The Army wasn't able to certify them for static line due the configuration of the tail (unless things have changed recently and I didn't hear it).

Not sure, ever since I have been a jumpmaster we have been able to jump them. Before that I didn't really look into it.

[apacheguy]

Not sure, ever since I have been a jumpmaster we have been able to jump them. Before that I didn't really look into it.

 

I (thankfully) haven't been on jump status since 2011 at which time we weren't allowed to use the V-22 for static line. It'd be interesting to hear if the army ever approved it. Someone at Benning decided to approve static line out of the UH-72, though I've never seen it done yet as it requires so much prep work and you can only drop 2 troops.

[aircrewman303]

the best thing for the V-22 is a dedicated CSAR asset. fast, good endurance and can land where other fixed wing planes can not.

just my opinion

[Sfbaby]

 

That's a surprise. The Army wasn't able to certify them for static line due the configuration of the tail (unless things have changed recently and I didn't hear it).

It's approved now. I've done 3 static line jumps in the last 3 months out of MV-22s. Very similar to jumping out of a STOL aircraft.

[Joe_P148]

It's approved now. I've done 3 static line jumps in the last 3 months out of MV-22s. Very similar to jumping out of a STOL aircraft.

What airspeed do you jump at?

[Creep0321]

What airspeed do you jump at?

"FOR STATIC LINE OPERATIONS, THE V-22 IS LIMITED TO AIRPLANE MODE ONLY WITH A MAXIMUM DROP SPEED OF 125KTS (+/- 5KTS) AND A MINIMUM DROP ALTITUDE OF 1000 FT AGL. TOTAL CAPACITY OF MV-22 FOR COMBAT-EQUIPPED JUMPERS IS EIGHT. TOTAL CAPACITY OF THE MV-22 FOR SLICK JUMPERS IS 16. STATIC LINE OPERATIONS ARE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF EIGHT JUMPERS PER PASS.

ALL JUMP OPERATIONS ARE OVER-THE RAMP OPERATIONS, WHICH IS THE ONLY EGRESS POINT AVAILABLE TO THE JUMPER. A STAGGERED OFFSET FILE EXIT FORMATION IS USED FOR STATIC LINE OPERATIONS WITH COMBAT EQUIPMENT." This is for USMC, not sure if USA is any different.

[Sfbaby]

I'll look up the Army Reg on Monday ( I have it on digits at work) but it's very similar. We jumped at 110 knots from 1250 AGL.

[Creep0321]

Yea 110 is closer to what we normally jump, and 1250-1500' AGL.

[Synixman]

So how do the v-22 guys defend this? I mean, they do realize the Osprey is a piece of junk, right?

 

I think a lot of you are looking at this through the wrong lens.

 

The Marines, doctrinally (ugh I hate that word, but it's a thing), think of the V-22 as projecting troops from the sea (LHD/LHA/LPD class ships) into the overland arena for an air/amphibious assault. That's a capability only they provide. In that regard, it's better than the -46 it replaced, and the community is coming around to the pretty amazing things it can do (with range and speed) vice what it cannot do. Whether or not that suits the Army in a catch-all airframe and their needs is yet to be seen. Two of my good friends from flight school fly the V-22 in the fleet and speak very highly of it after deployments to the sandbox.

 

I'll admit I'm skeptical of what Future Vertical Lift is bringing to the table in terms of radical departure from the traditional, but i'm willing to see it play out. We've been living in Uncle Igor's Hawk airframe for almost 50 years (1970-2015) now, with small incremental improvements to engine/XMSN/flight controls, and with it, marginal improvements in speed, range, high altitude performance, and survivability over the years. At some point, we've got to move on (nice try CSAR-X!).

 

If that's one of these, great. If not, great. We'll all be long retired by the time they're realized, but I certainly cannot fault the DoD for putting money in the game now. No civilian entities have the dollars to fund clean sheet helicopter design and get the generational improvement we deserve.

[Velocity173]

http://www.g2mil.com/qalat.htm

 

5,400 ft HOGE. That's a typical gross weight and not even max gross. Forget the comments the 160th COL (now BG) made, a regular NG, AR, or active duty unit could never fulfill mission requirements in OEF with that kind of performance. The V-280 is projected at 6,000 ft HOGE at 95. Not bad, but it's just a projection. Still, I've hovered in a 60 in the middle of the summer in Astan at 7-8K OGE. Even have a pic hovering at over 12,500 feet up...albeit at a much cooler temp.

 

There's also an article out about another accident with an Osprey landing formation. Like I said earlier, I had a feeling wake / vortices have got to be a problem with a tilt rotor landing in formation. You're gonna have wide variations in lift from one side to the other with all the induced flow and recirculation.

 

I just think the S-97 Raider and the SB1 Defiant pusher concepts have more to offer the Army. We'll see.

[akscott60]

Ugh. No thank you on that CV22. I just read that link.