V-22 Can't Fly More Than 30 Minutes Away
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 май 2024
- V-22s are no longer barred from flying, but they are now operating with a restriction that significantly affects their ability to carry out the mission.
Military.com just broke the news that the Osprey is only allowed to fly within 30 minutes of a “suitable airfield.”
Ward explores what this means to the U.S. Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
Subscribe to THE MOOCH REPORT (this channel's free weekly behind-the-scenes update) here: eepurl.com/hDfbsj
Support this channel by using the SUPER THANKS (heart icon above) or by becoming a Patron at / wardcarroll
Buy one or all three of the books in the PUNK'S TRILOGY, Ward's popular first three novels about life a Tomcat squadron, at www.usni.org/punks-trilogy-re....
Also available in KINDLE format here: www.amazon.com/dp/B09R1MX8SY
And as an audiobook here:
PUNK'S WAR: www.audible.com/pd/Punks-War-...
PUNK'S WING: www.amazon.com/Punks-Wing-Pun...
PUNK'S FIGHT: www.amazon.com/Punks-Fight-Pu...
Get official channel gear at my-store-b7f9c9.creator-sprin... 
Развлечения
Stop with the clickbait titles man you're better than that. I know it's for clicks but being honest will get you further.
"In the meantime, as long as the war is no more than thirty minutes away..." You, sir, are a HOOT! 😂
You beat me to it.
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their eyes.
Meanwhile, just today one had to make an emergency landing at Beaufort N.C.
LOL! :D
Over in China:"Write that down, write that down!"
Was on TONS of these when I was in Afghanistan...they were my favorite ride. CRAZY powerful. Love them. Even if they are dangerous af. RIP to all those lost in these things over the years.
was on em in iraq & afghanistan, and while i'll say they WERE fast - i despise them! their down draft is crazy, they're LOUD, and they just don't move right...
@@dobrzpe No louder than 53s!!...and those shoot all kinds of fluids all over you, too! 🤣
supposedly they aren't any more dangerous than a blackhawk statistically
I liked the speed of the v22. Loud? Yes!
I preferred chinooks.
I met an Osprey pilot that recently elected to leave the military and pursue an airline career. He did not have anything bad to say about the aircraft. However, I was stunned to learn that his TOTAL TIME as a pilot is just over 300 hours!! He is trying to build time now as a CFI.
WTF? Unbelievable!
My neighbor is a retired USAF F15 pilot and current commercial pilot. He only logged 900 hours in his entire military career and I thought that was low!
Holy cow. But that how I heard they keep accidents number down. Least flying hours. There is an episode about that whole thing. On this channel. But man. That sucks. And the osprey pilots have a lot to think about when flying. More like shaky trust in there issued plane.
Marine? I deployed as a Marine Judge Advocate with an infantry battalion, and we had two relatively young pilots with us who left their squadrons to advise/FAC within the battalion. From what I remember, it worked out to be about a year without flying for both of them.
@@keepyourbilsteins It's worth noting that 900 mil hours, particularly in a fighter, are quite different than in any other flying field. Those hours are much more action packed and intense than a standard "A-B" airliner type flight. For a fighter, that includes tracking targets, deploying weapons, flying in formation, etc. There's a reason that former MIL pilots can get a r-ATP at only 750 hours. So while 900 hours isn't necessarily a ton by military standards, it's still quite substantial and a lot more meaningful than 900 hours in a cessna
It means it has a 30min divert limitation.
It doesn't mean it can only go 30 minutes from point of origin.
That is the way I read it, too. Any warning indications need the aircraft safely down within 30 minutes. They can't be 50 minutes from the ship.
He said that. Regardless, in a war zone finding a divert within 30 minutes would be a challenge.
@@danhillman4523i imagine in actual war this limitation would be thrown out the window immediately.
No but that’s a distinction without a difference.
Im on a carrier way out in the ocean, there’s no airfields so you can only go 30 mins from the ship. And airbases aren’t exactly built next to each other every 200 ish kilometers. So it all depends on what they define an as suitable. If it’s an us airbase you’re not really going anywhere. If it’s just an airport, it’s fine.
@@lucakrokrowinkel9576 Any sort of engine trouble and a ship is a no go, V-22s can't hover on one engine, they stall at over 100kts, and have no arrestor gear, so no landing on any ship, even an aircraft carrier.
*edit: I also forgot to mention that due to the extremely light Prop-Rotors it is very very hard to autorotate a V-22, so hard that they don't even let V-22 Pilots practice it outside of the simulator.
The basic issue is the V-22 can't fly well with one engine, and sometimes not at all. All this is made worse if it lands in the dirt or sand and its proprotors churn up a tornado of sand and dirt that gets sucked into the engine intakes causing problems.
It can't land vertically with just with one engine. If one is lost, both proprotors must still turn to fly, so there is a complex composite cross shaft with 14 segments to drive the other to continue flight in the airplane mode. But if the other rotor can't turn or engine can't tilt level, it flips over in seconds and goes head first into the ground. This happened with the now admitted clutch problem.
This last crash reported an engine on fire and the CV-22 quickly plunging downward, probably because the damage didn't allow the cross shaft to drive the other proprotor. The best option is to shut down both engines and glide for a crash landing, but with small narrow wings the sink rate is four times higher than regular aircraft, so it hits very hard. But the pilot has just seconds to realize the danger and shut down both engines before he's inverted.
It can't fly with just one engine like an airplane (unless it can drive both proprotors) because the yaw is too great with engines on the wingtips and the huge proprotor can't feather to reduce drag on a dead engine.
Good explanation. Tilt rotor is a difficult problem but so many advantages. Too bad they can't figure a whole aircraft parachute for it. The wing and rotors rocketing away dragging out a parachute canopy.
a problem my mother in law could have told the military
@@HappyheartmattDid your MIL wear USAF test pilot boots? (Meant as a compliment.)
From 1965 to 1973 there were 7 C2A accidents. Of those only one managed to make it back to the beach. The other six resulted in 59 fatalities. Three more sailors were lost in a 2017 crash. The V22 has 62 fatalities, so far.
The C2A is coming up on 60 years service and carrier operations are hard on any aircraft. Will the V22 get sorted out before the C2 gets grounded?
And who thought this was a good design?? It would probably have made more sense to have 4 or possibly 6 smaller engines across the wing to add redundancy and reduce the torque yaw from engine loss. Then you wouldn't need the shaft. There is an air taxi design using electric motors that run all along the leading edge of the wing and horizontal stab. Can't remember the name of it.
Point of Order Mooch.... The current inventory of C-2A (Reprocured) Greyhounds started hitting the fleet in late 1985. Some 39 years ago, not 60 as you mentioned. This fact is often misreported when discussing the age of the current Greyhound fleet. I am a former C-2A Aircrewman (VR-24), FRS (VAW-120) Instructor (2000+ hours) and Grumman employee. Admittedly 39 years is still aging, however, it's certainly not 60.
As a 55 year old, can you backdate me to 34 years?😊
Laughs in B-52
The C-2A initially entered service in 1965, 59 years ago.
I was working at AMARC in 1985 when the original Greyhounds were coming in from the fleet for storage.
@@SpynCycle57 You are correct, however, the Navy "reprocured" them in the mid-80s. Grumman built brand-new C-2A(R)s which are the ones currently in the fleet. I know, I was there, VR-24 fall of 1985, we were the first fleet squadron to receive them. Look it up, its in the history books.... :)
I remember back in the 1980's people talking about the Osprey replacing the CH-46 Sea Knight (I was USMC Infantry). The Osprey would have been put into service before I got out in 1994 if it weren't for the fact that it kept falling out of the sky. The 46's were old; but, I enjoyed the view and it sure beat the hell out of walking. An old saying about the 46's: When you get inside, look up. If it's leaking hydraulic fluid, that's a good sign. It means it still has some 😊.
You guys had a different aircraft falling out of the sky way too often, the CH-53. I am surprised you don't remember it. It did kill 200 servicemen in accidents between 1969 and 1990.
@@bl8danjil It was very rare for us to ever ride in a CH-53. I didn't care for them because the few windows were too high to see out of or easily egress from. On one week long training evolution, we flew round trip from Camp Lejeune NC to Ft A.P. Hill VA. We had 53 infantry and the 4 crew in that thing. That sucked. One 53 crashed while I was in Okinawa in 1988. But it was pilot error. The pilots were following the coast at a fairly low altitude, flew into a fog bank and right into a cliff.
Always appreciate our military sense of humor. On the ship I was on it was, "how long can you tread water?"
@@ThomasDrehfal With or without a kapok? 😂
@@Pichouette Now there is a term I have not heard in over 40 years. But " we don't need no stinking kapok's". LOL
"ageing c-2a greyhound"...lol- it was "ageing" in 1985, when I was in......
NAVAIR should've just updated the C-2 when the E-2 D-models were getting introduced. While Greyhound isn't perfect, it got the job done and was largely reliable.
At the very least, update the engine and nav gear.
I love armchair admirals.
How many fleets have you commanded, admiral?
The Navy CVM-22 was selected without competition. Guess why? The V-22 can't self-taxi like the C-2, which fouls the deck. And it can't land on destroyers and cruisers as it's too heavy, same as the H-53. It can't safely sling load either. And it can only carry an F-35 engine if it is taken apart into six components, just like the C-2.
It’s particularly frustrating because there is a hot E-2 line and it doesn’t seem like a stretch to be able to build a C-2 with a fuselage large enough to carry the F-35 engine module. Lots of parts and training commonality with the E-2. The E-2/C-2 pilots also had a good thing going where they could go from one platform to another through a career.
You're talking about a 50 year old design. There isn't a lot of updating to do. And it doesn't open the use to other platforms. The V-22 can operate from more than just CVN.
@@WALTERBROADDUS The E-2D is a new design with new engines, improved props and electronics, and air refueling. The V-22 can't operate from other carrier force ships since its too heavy, like the H-53.
Man, the best most concise reporter I’ve ever watched. Ward is the most trusted name in news for me!
Search out more news and add to your magazine
It's an ai voice mate
😂😂😂
Ever hear of Julian Asange?
He reported well on what yall did.
@@harrysummers9858You might want to retract that after watching one of his other videos or livestreams that shows him talking. He’s the genuine article, nothing a.i. about him.
This 20-year AF veteran really enjoys your presentations.
the jsdf v22s were grounded as well
I was at Eglin in 98 when the Air Force was testing the V-22. We would be riding around base & see one in a solid hover at about 1000/1500 feet for several minutes at a time.
Ward, you are killing it. Us old guys really envy your access.
I am very impressed that these don't crash a lot more than they do. I imagine that most failure modes are catastrophic.
Despite the hype, they really don't crash anymore then helicopters do.
@@WALTERBROADDUS I think for different reasons though.
The failure mode of all modern aircraft is usually fatal, moreso with helicopter types. Just the other day a T7 trainer pilot was killed from an ejection seat malfunction.
The military is getting soft, you're never going to get airline safety out of a war machine.
They aren't even that dangerous statistically. That's why nobody talks about the actual statistics. Just complain about specific incidents.
I know what you mean, after seeing the footage of the USS Green Bay mishap: the diameter of the rotors, the kinetic energy in each, the distance between them, and the potential for massive asymmetrical thrust.
I remember hearing about this amazing vehicle under development back in the early 1990s, and thinking it was too good to be true: greater range with much faster speed & still able to hover and land vertically, but seems like the trade-off is complexity. Hopefully this is the last problem that needs to get remedied.
I joined the Marines around the time when we had several crashes, and some of the Marines I went to boot camp with or knew from the fleet in 1999-2000 were on those birds.
I never trusted them after that.
USMC 1999-2007
I think you should worry more about the water at Camp Lejeune, than the V-22?
@@WALTERBROADDUS , is that a question or a statement?
I can be concerned for more than one thing at a time, and the topic here is the V-22.
@@WALTERBROADDUS, I think you shouldn't have Internet?
I assume you feel the same about Hueys since 100 times as many soldiers died in them.
@@stargazer7644, that's sort of apples and oranges.
The actual service lifetime of the Huey is way longer and saw many years of combat where the enemy could actually hit us. The V-22 only arrived to the fleet in 2007, and has seen nowhere near the combat the Huey has seen. Maybe in 50 years the V-22 will be one of the best aircraft at the time, but that's not now.
However, sure, if the aircraft is shit, then I don't trust it.
I'm a former Turbofan Test Engineer for Lockheed and Rolls-Royce testing the Trent 900, 1000, and XWB engines (also the first BR725). The Boeing 787 (Trent 1000) is a shit airframe, and we knew it way back in 2010 and even earlier. I don't trust it either.
As a HS kid I worked a summer job on Ft. Hood in the late 80's for a company that tested things for the Army before being fielded. All kinds of equipment and gear. The Osprey didn't survive the second day. Several people were injured attempting to run up to board the Osprey in a hazardous LZ test. The rotor wash knocked men down and threw them about causing injuries.
The Army locked down with a hard NOPE/ NO GO ever since on that disaster with spinning blades and turbines.
Time has only proved the Army got that one absolutely right.
One of the reasons the Coast Guard refused to have the aircraft. They couldn't perform a direct overhead water rescue due to the atrocious downwash of the props. It would blow the victim in the water away from them. To pass the water rescue test the victim had to be about 40 yards away from the pick up area and the PJ had to enter the water, swim to the victim, then be hoisted to the aircraft. All while being beaten up by the propwash.
I worked this program during "Return to Flight" phase.
As wise man once said, If you don't having anything "good" to say, keep your mouth shut.
I got nothin' good to say about this program... lots of skeletons in the closets.
now they want to buy their own POS.
@@wilber504 Because it is a better aircraft. Better than sitting on the sidelines in a Pacific war too.
Huh? What are you talking about? The Army had other things it wanted to acquire and the Osprey just didn't mesh with how the Army operated at that time. They didn't need it at the time. With the choosing of the V-280 their plans and strategies have changed to how they will tackle the pacific.
@@richardchumbley4382doesn't sound wise at all. Will just lead to more people killed.
As a pilot I have a long list of aircraft I would love to fly. The V-22 is at the top of my list of aircraft I do not. God bless our troops.
Tilt rotors are really cool and have some uniquely useful applications, but they're just terrifying.
They have all of the risks of both a helicopter and a fixed wing with very few of the options of either to allow a safe outcome in an emergency.
A UH-60 pilot I know wondered why they didn't design the V-22 with its engines in the hull rather than out on the wings.
it would have reduced the complexities of the power transmission to the tilt rotors for single engine operation. However putting the engines in the hull would have reduced cubic space in the hull. Everything is a tradeoff.
@@braincraven Makes sense. My friend mentioned power transmission as well Though, at this point, losing space in the hull probably is looking like a good option for the Pentagon.
@@johnsteiner3417 I don't understand why this aircraft was even designed. We have the Chinook. Sure it doesn't fly like a plane - cos it isn't a plane. Why would we need that to be a thing? If there's a landing strip; use a C-130. If you need vtol; use the Chinook. Plan missions around the top speeds of each airframe. Save money and lives.
@@maxr.mamint8580 They wanted a vtol C-130
@@maxr.mamint8580 For mechanical complexity I get why they want to change the way rotor wing is built, but this was definitely the wrong answer. Worse, the army's current contest for next-gen vertical lift aircraft rejected the twin rotor helo design for yet another tilt rotor airframe.
This definitely sounds like a flag officer decision.
Sounds like they're finally having buyers remorse after seen the never ending issues with a junk airframe which shouldn't have been slated to replace anything after its first few years of failures.
@@raymarshall6721 Well, when a vehicle kills more of your own troops than your enemy, it's probably time to take stock LOL
Same officers that thought LCS was a great idea. Although LCS hasn't killed nearly as many people.
@@raymarshall6721 I watched the eval at Edwards AFB for desert training and long term evaluation. They were very susceptible to dirt/Sand intrusion. Never had any faith in this complicated design
Excellent report thanks
Excellent information!!!
In some areas, the Osprey seems to have morphed into an albtross.
An albatross has a much longer range than a V22
I have called the Osprey the Ospatross for the last 20 years!
@@Gullpped In all fairness and Albatross has more range than anything. One Albatross was recorded flying 24000 kilometres in one month.
I disagree--the albatross has trouble taking off and landing, but once in the air will keep on flying and flying and flying. The Osprey has trouble flying, too.
Not seeing how being within 30 minutes of an airfield is going to save them from a catastrophic failure and crash.
It’s so the osprey wont have to tilt its rotors forward I’d imagine.
Cleanup will be closer to home? 🤷♂️
@@slugmaster64 try a different guess... lol
It doesn’t. It just means you can crash at an airfield.
@@tjbruds4701 I’ll stick with my original. I’ve yet to read yours
Great video, Ward...👍
Great report, Mooch.
It’s time to build an actual greyhound replacement.
This was the replacement.
@@WALTERBROADDUSwell yes and no. It wasn’t designed to be that but the navy got high and decided to replace the Greyhound with this boondoggle.
@WALTERBROADDUS
I believe the OP meant an effective replacement. Just a poor choice of wording.
@@DonWan47 Navy got high again!? Or did this happened as they were high before op Golden Flow?
@@DonWan47 we are already moving on to the next Generation tilt rotor aircraft. The Greyhound as good as it was, doesn't have the flexibility of being able to operate from other Platforms in the fleet. The V-22 gives you the ability to expand COD services to non CVN's.
You don't get something for nothing. The unique capabilities of the V-22 still mean that the engineering requirements continue to exist at the edge of the envelope.
Given that it’s been around for decades you’d think they’d have worked out more than a few of the kinks…
@@Justanotherconsumer No, I agree. I'm surprised there are still such endemic engineering faults here. But given the fact that this clutch is the focus of issues it's apparent that the materials and design put into it are not in a sweet spot for reliability.
V22- “we can deliver your platoon the front in 30 mins or your next medivac is free”.
Hey Ward just realized from one of your older videos I was on the CVN 69 with you for the late 91 cruse. I was a plane captain for VFA-136 knight hawks out of Cecil Field. I got my blue nose on that one as well.
OMG! How many more service members have to die before this flying Edsel is grounded for good?!? Thanks for the update, Commander.
OMG how long are idiots going to listen to the hysterics of aviation dorks and reporters over the actual statistics?
Incident/flight hour
Fatality/flight hour
Everything else is irrelevant.
The Osprey has a record that is comparable to the cash record of other rotary aircraft.
Blackhawk and Chinook have had some horrible crashes too and many early in their careers.
If you want to ground the osprey because of mishaps, you should ground other aircraft first.
What is the mishap rate of the V 22?
3.43 per 100,000 flight hours
But facts matter, and the data shows the 10-year average mishap rate for MV-22s is 3.43 per 100,000 flight hours. For context, that places the Osprey's mishap rate squarely in the middle of the other type/model/series aircraft currently flown by the U.S. Marine Corps.
Can't fly more than 30 minutes away until loger power cords are procured.
Thanks, Ward.
Thanks for the update, Ward!
30 years and still broken... What a cluster-f of a program.
Still a better track record than the Blackhawks.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. This is a new issue that has developed over time. Not something that was there from the outset.
@@ImpendingJoker Yeah yeah sure. How about this? 30 years and still developing new problems... what a cluster-f of a program.
Here you go. You're welcome.
Name a US military program that isn't. From the Humvee to the Abrams to the Osprey. All of them are failures and all of them, a waste of money
I am a mechanical engineer and I don't have any doubt this should have been fixed a long time ago I agree with you
Wonderful technology, but just not reliable or safe enough. It just seems like it should be reserved for special ops where it’s special capabilities are needed and risk is part of the deal. Using it to replace the C-2 for example is ridiculous. You have to have more of them than the aircraft you’re replacing just to meet minimum availability. And then you have to bring back c-2s to save the day. Cost, complexity and unreliability is not worth it.
If you're in Special operations you would be stupid to fly in a V-22 Where you know if it's v-22 you'll likely die. are the lives of Special operators not important at all? THE MILITARY NEEDS TO GET RID OF V-22 It's Trash. Sell them to a foreign country or give them to Ukraine.
I remember in the 90s when the Blackhawk was nicknamed the "crashhawk" because it was perceived to have a high crash rate. Now it's a revered airframe.
Strong visual shout-out to the 1 SOS at Kadena AB, Okinawa in the thumbnail.
That 30 min rule sounds like the aircraft is not engaging tilt rotor. Sounds like it’s only flying in helo configuration
What a gargantuan waste of money this program was…. Par for the course I guess.
If it needs a runway within 30 min then I would think it has to land like a plane. The problem may be that it can't change to helo mode if the clutch isn't working correctly.
@@rickwoodmeister2088 - he didn't say runway he said airfield
@@rickwoodmeister2088It can’t ever land “like an airplane” because the rotors are too large; they would strike the ground.
@@rickwoodmeister2088 The V-22 cannot land with the rotors forward because the radius of the blades is longer than the height of the wing.
I still don't trust the V-22.
They would have these on JBLM and fly over the base housing, they were a bit terrifying cuz it sounds like it was beating my house up with force of its rotors. It also didn't help I kept hearing mishaps with this AC.
Another wonderful example of systemic failure, incompetence, and unconscionable waste in our keystone cops govt. We need leadership!
It just seems like a stupid design, from start to finish.
Seriously, WHY WOULD YOU REPLACE the Blackhawk? It was perfect and easier, but they had to screw up hard on this one and now they can't go back, they'll have to fix it I guess
@@ankilo5519 Vastly quicker air speed, much more capacity and range. For long distance team deployment they used to have fly them in C-130s to a local LZ for the Black Hawk. The V-22 has been a game changer, and it is a very complex machine that is still requiring development. In WW2 the helicopter was in a similar state and look what development has done for it. We will get there, sometimes the time scales involved to develop new concepts take generations.
Interesting video. Always thought this aircraft was an innovative design but didn’t know its problems. BTW, nice guitar rig!
My father was an Army aviator. I remember reading his army aviator magazines when I was young in the 1970s and they were pushing this tilt rotor aircraft even back then. It never got approved for mass production until the Marines decided to take it on as a V-22. I think it may have been a stinker from the beginning but some government contract had already spent so much money on the project they just had to deploy it in some way to get some level of credibility for all the money spent. If anyone is heard one of these things fly over they are loud as f. No sneaking up on the enemy if you know what I mean. And now there are safety issues duh.
I was an airframer in the Navy when these things first came on the scene. We all knew back then that they'd be a failure. What a waste of taxpayer's money.
Flying for 30 years. what a failure.
@@The_Sword3I’d measure the cost in lives lost. This thing has been killing people for 30 years.
@@grenadespoon By that logic we should have gotten rid of the MH-53E and all it's early variants a long time ago.
Wow, I guess you were completely oblivious to the Navy MH-53E having the worst mishap rate out of all its aircraft or that its early variants were crashing so much out of combat Congress started questioning it.
@@bl8danjil this discussion is about the V22 Osprey in case you didn't notice
I have jumped out of the Marine Corps version a few times. My first ride up in one, we all noticed that the bird was pulling some pretty hard G's, I could barely lift my hand off my thigh for a moment while we were seated. We got up to altitude jumped out as planned, and while on the ground my buddy who was the jump master has a big grin on his face as he came up to me to gossip about how he heard the pilots on his comms headset screaming because they momentarily lost control of the aircraft, which was why we experienced an unusual amount of G's. Even if they told us to bail out, I don't think any of us would of been able to move towards the door to get out with that much force pushing us into our seats. Great first ride!
Thanks Ward
Ward always informative. It's upsetting that we lose good people every time one of these birds goes down. Seems like it has happened too many times already, hope the military finally figures it out.
Ward are you able to comment what happened to the common support aircraft concept? It seemed like a no-brainer to develop a relatively straightforward airframe akin to the S-3 that can do maritime patrol, ASW, EW, refueler and some COD. Why didnt the navy go down that route?
Because the V22 has long legs and can land/takeoff almost anywhere. That was the theory at least.
More money for contractors and thus more kickbacks, with a more expensive product.
This is most frustrating as a prior C2A crewman, she is a tough old gal, should have took a look at the proposed C2B
Such a great channel
Great video.
Man, what a disaster. Craft like these have been crashing for 20+ years.
I can remember a year ago having an argument with a guy who insisted the V-22 was so much better than helicopters because they could fly so far. This has been a well-known problem for a long time.
Looking at the interior of an E-2, you could rip all those cabinets out and put two rows of chairs in there. Most of what the C2 carries is boxes/bags of junk and passengers. The really bulky stuff isn't all the time. You could use otherwise retired/obsolete E-2's to make up for C-2's that are retiring until the Navy finally decides what it's going to do about the V22.
I've seen pics of E-2's without their radome, unsure if they're checked out to fly like that but if they were it likely would mean you're never MTOW limited for cargo ops.
They better have the obvious ‘back-up plan’ ready for the C-2 Upgrade. Perfectly good aircraft that’s earned its rights to be respected as a cost effective carrier-based asset.
They really should have kept the CH-46 Sea Knight around.
The 46 killed WAY more Marines than the V22.
Ch-46 doesn't have the performance.
@@WALTERBROADDUS Had they kept it around to upgrade and modernize; it would have filled the gap while the V-22 got it's teething issues sorted.
How many different knives does your kitchen have?
Throw a tailhook on a Herc? (tongue firmly in cheek)
It's been done.
Yep! Do it
@@wntu4 But that was a one off to prove it could be done, but it's obviously not a practical option. If we could put the AC-130 to sea to deliver mail to sailors, and bad news to the enemy?? Again...tongue in cheek.
@@earthwindflier It would take a new model. Something with folding wings and maybe a flip up tail. It's undeniably large for a carrier. But the proof of basic concept has been done. Just a matter of will and ingenuity.
@@wntu4 Agreed 100%. I know it sounds easy, but if they can (semi) successfully scale UP a 737, scaling DOWN a C-130 doesn't seem an unreasonable stretch. Maybe a twin engine variant not unlike the C-123?
I live near Fort Bragg and I see them once in a while. They were featured at the MCAS air show.
It's too bad about the lack of trust in the V-22. They could have used it to evac that kid off the cruise ship 150mi off the GA/FL coast, but instead the nearest base, a space force base, had to scramble two MH-60 and a C-130 air refueling unit for the round trip rescue.
SAD - I was an SH-60B crewman when word came that these aircraft were coming - and just a few years from operational - 35 years ago. Then, due to design and safety issues - they don't go operational until 2007 (after I retired). I had dreamt of doing some ASW missions in this bird - it was what the Navy forecast as a mission.
On an aside - I wonder what it would take to bring the old S-3B Viking back for immediate coverage and convert some to bigger carrying ability (okay, I'm biased there as my last sea-tour was as a Viking crewman.)
Meetoo! SH3H & ASWMod AW. Same on looking forward to the Osprey as an ASW bird.
I have to wonder how the sub-threat can be handled these days with no S3’s, no P3’s and few P8’s. It’s a large ocean, both of them, now with two real threats!
@@TheWookie_USN Maybe Musks constellation with 42,000 satellites will have a hidden capability?
@@dirtcurt1Maybe....but for Putrid and Xi!
Hats off to you for another really informative video, Ward. Thumbs down to the scandalous history of this bird that we're now totally committed to.
Missed seeing them last summer on my beach vacation near MCAS Cherry Point.
Be assured that the Marine Corps will fly that thing chock full of bodies as close or as far away as they feel they need to, whenever they feel like they need to. And to be honest, there is something commendable about their never ending stubbornness as it pertains to the mission.
"There's a ton of life left in this platform, but not much left for its operators." Fixed.
As a former Navy aircrewman and the father of a Marine, i would be very concerned about the Osprey. Given its track record, combined with the obvious shifts in warfare as seen in Ukraine, this this remains a dog, is not survivable, cannot complete its mission, any mission, and should be retired like the other dog in service, the littoral combat ships.
ALWAYS considered them a bonafide POS. The number of non-combat related fatalities is unacceptable!!!
@@maxcoldest7196 The CH-53 early variants have left the chat...
Its safety record is on par with others if you dare to read up on it. By comparison, the MH-53E had the worst mishap rate more than twice the average of other Navy helicopters. And we are still flying the 53.
I had a friend that was an apache pilot. He was never getting any hours because they were always broke. He switched to the Kiowa and said it was the best career move he ever made. This was twenty years ago. I'm sure the apache is good to go. Probably. Sometimes fancy a liability and not worth it.
Thanks for this. There are three of those birds (solid green) that keep chasing a couple of Sea Kings around, almost directly overhead, every couple of months. At least they’re loud enough to give me a decent amount of advance warning (like a third of their flight between KSFO and KNUQ).-RADAR OUT
C-2 Greyhound will get yet another life extension program!
Older design have practically have an infinite lifetime if the airframe was over designed.
Like the P-3 Orion some aircraft are not meant for the boneyard. With proper maintenance almost anything could fly forever. *ALMOST ANYTHING* 'Balls 8' was NASA's B52, launched the X-15, and retired in 2004 after 50 years in service. The B52's maiden flight was in 1952 and won't (can't?) be replaced until 2050. Flew before I was born and will be flying long after I'm gone. Over designed & over engineered, the C2 will see another 10 years easy.
Agree 👍. How old is our B-52 fleet? The C-2 is a proven workhorse. If it ain't broke don't fix it my dad used to say.
It was a feature of pre-CAD designs where engineers injected huge margins of safety in their designs.
A friend of mine maintained commercial aircrafts while studying mechanical engineering and he was astounded by the strength and durability of Fairchild commercial airplanes in particular.
He told me that Canadair would never build a plane as durable because of cost and performance penalty.
There’s an interesting article titled, “V-22 Osprey: Does it deserve its controversial reputation?” and it says the V-22 “is statistically among the safer military aircraft if you look at the numbers.”
Bc they never put it in actual combat. Carefully planned exercises that hide its many defects.
yah with carefully cherry picked statistics
The same way they fudged the data for the kc 46 tanker
@@festungkurland9804 what cherry picked stats?
It's failure rate is about on par with what would be expected. However the issue is due to the design the manner it fails is almost always catastrophic. Helicopters have autorotation, planes can glide, the V22 in most scenarios have neither
I guess we need to keep building CH-47 and CH-53 choppers
Perhaps a different design approach is warranted. I’m thinking of the AH-56 Cheyenne helicopter, and its’ “autogyro” arrangement: Main rotor for lift and rear prop for forward motion. Seems a simpler, more reliable plan.
I also can’t believe that no one has considered the replacement for this 30-year old platform. Maybe it’s time to look at a replacement?
The C-2 is basically in production as the E-2D, so just buy new C-2s, which have far more range, speed, payload and reliability compared to the flawed V-22. The Marines can buy Navy MH-60S that can also serve as attack helos and can pick up just as much vertically as the V-22, can "safely" sling load, cost half as much, and are one-third smaller in empty weight.
Better yet, let the Marines have the Defiant X that the Army rejected! The Army will probably regret that decision if the 2nd gen tilt rotor is anything like the 1st!
@@thecasper911
What have you got against the Marines?
It's not that the Army "rejected" Defiant. The V-280 far outperformed it. At the beginning Army set a date for both aircrafts' first flight. Defiant was a year and a quarter late then soon after that was grounded for more work. Dates kept being announced when Defiant would demonstrate certain goals and those dates would come and go with no explanation. It flew far fewer hours than Valor. Defaint never achieved its promised speed. Valor exceeded its promised (higher ) speed by 9%. And so on.
In addition Defiant failed to provide certain Army required data in is bid and didn't respond with information Army required. In fact, so much information was missing Army said it couldn't validate what the team claimed it would cost.
This is what you want the Marines to use?
What is the mishap rate of the V 22?
3.43 per 100,000 flight hours
But facts matter, and the data shows the 10-year average mishap rate for MV-22s is 3.43 per 100,000 flight hours. For context, that places the Osprey's mishap rate squarely in the middle of the other type/model/series aircraft currently flown by the U.S. Marine Corps.
Facts don’t get clicks, emotions do. 🫤
@@gpaull2
Ward's facts get clicks. 👍
Big difference: Osprey's flight hours are candy ass flight hours cruising around for the most part and it is STILL not called to do same landing zones, slung load heavy lift etc missions as all other Helo's. Oh yea, and requires roughly~2X(1.8? I think?) as many personnel to operate due to all the extra maintenance.
@@w8stral This would be surprise to the Marines in Afghanistan and elsewhere, but what do they know? Heavy lift is not its role, BTW, that belongs to the CH-53
@@tararaboomdiay7442 Apparently you can't read basis Marine reports then...
The V22 program reminds me of the old saying "Don't force it! Get a bigger hammer."
Thanks Ward ! Your updates are invaluable! I still can’t fly it on my Microsoft Flight Simulator!
I feel like I’ve heard like 10 plus stories of this thing crashing and killing every one on board, I don’t think I would ever ride in this thing. Who even makes these Boeing?
As a mater of fact, yes: Manufacturers: Bell Textron, Boeing Rotorcraft Systems, Boeing Defense, Space & Security
Chinook has total loss crashes, as does Blackhawk.
Osprey has not had a particularly bad crash record.
A huge problem is that most of these V-22 crashes have been for the same reason.
I honestly never understood the Osprey having a .50 cal on the rear ramp....to shoot at a target you just passed right over that's likely shooting at you.🤔
It makes sense if you think of overlapping fields of fire from the two side guns. Also... bad guys come out and shoot up your backside all the time.
Sometimes it's useful to return fire.
Thanks so much for creating and sharing this informative video. Great job. Keep it up.
One more argument for buying more tilt rotor aircraft.... Sadness.
Several AFSOC personnel have told me they did not want the Osprey, it was supposedly forced on them by DOD.
My spidey sense tells me there will be more CH53K's purchased than originally envisioned. And the Navy will have to remanufacture some C2's. Buy new wings, engines, new glass cockpit. In a perfect world they could keep it simple and giterdun. But that would take money away from the black hole that is the osprey.
I feel like this has been coming for a long time, and there doesn’t appear to be any viable fixes to this problem. And, being restricted to a 30 minute bubble is a severe handicap. A new replacement needs to be researched.
Love the videos thank you. One question. Is that a 6 by 12 Marshall cab in the background. Looks even bigger. I bet that gets loud in that room. Lol
30 minutes in a rotor craft ought to get you at least to the corner 711 for big gulp hydration purposes.
Why dear god ! is this P.O.S. allowed to fly at all. If this was a commercial aircraft ...it would of been grounded. Kinda like the Boeing 737 Max.
Which is not grounded.
Boeing is a company in trouble. I remember a time when I boarded a commercial flight and felt relieved when I saw it was made by Boeing. Not any more. They have lost their mojo. The Osprey is made by Boeing. A video exploring the “why” would be appreciated.
No kidding. Someone (or a group of people) is messing up their company something fierce.
The Osprey was designed decades ago.
In trouble might be an understatement. They threw away decades of company culture and prestige, and lives for that extra profit margin. Unless they do a 180 now it'll be their end in a couple years, at most. And judging by the fate of these former employees/ witnesses there is no interest in that.
John Oliver did a good deep dive into that topic. Look him up. He focuses on their civilian business (which is what you mention), but I suspect that the root causes apply to their military jets too.
@@davidsmith8997 Will do, thx.
My son is a Marine onboard the USS Wasp and he works on the electronics on the V-22
Sounds like this is probably going to be temporary. But Fingers crossed that they get this great platform fully operational again.
What a colossal boondoggle. I remember when I was a kid. My parents got me this modern warplanes book when I was 12 or 13 years old, and it had a section on the AV-8A and AV-8B Harrier. In that section there was an artist's rendering of an Osprey on the ground during a mission (referencing its VTOL capabilities). 40 years later and they still can't get it to work!!
I have the same book!
Well, upon further review, it appears I was mistaken. It’s not in the book I was thinking about. Must be somewhere in the thousands of other old warplane books I have!
“Officials remain vague about the root cause” of the mishap. That should tell you all you need to know about what these people value more: the lives of the people, or pushing forward a dangerous product.
I'm more impressed by people who can't say what the root cause is, than by people who quickly proclaim the root cause when they don't know.
@@j_taylor well, according to them, they “know” the root cause, but don’t know “why.” It’s complete bullshit.
Great report Ward. Fly Navy.
When the V-22 was first put into service I thought, "This is a totally new kind of aircraft. We should restrain ourselves. Build a few dozens of them and work the heck out of them. That will teach us what is wrong with them. Then we can design one that'll work far better." Unfortunately, three services built them in quantity and have spent many years trying to come up with fixes to a design that good sense would have warned would have some fundamental flaws from the start.
Never been a fan of the Osprey. It’s the epitome of a bad idea followed up by evidence of said bad idea. Two huge rotating propellers that make a ton of noise and if one or both stop turning, bad outcomes occur. The US military and servicemen deserve better.
There's nothing wrong with the Tilt rotor concept. It outperforms the helicopters it replaced. You can go further, fly faster, fly higher.
That aircraft cannot fly with just one engine, certainly not? They say that "Interconnected driveshafts" can power it on a single engine, but that's got to be a total hot mess when that happens, and given those shafts are "Interconnected", certainly that is a MAJOR point of failure? And gliding that thing on catastrophic loss of power is probably like flying the Space Shuttle, right? Flying brick?
Defiant is a better idea. Counterrotating on top of each other instead of side by side on tilting wings provides a more reliable fail safe.
You ever heard of the Chinook?
I really think you should not talk about topics you know nothing about.
@@WALTERBROADDUS "There's nothing wrong with the Tilt rotor concept" sorry but I totally disagree, the Tilt Rotor concept may be good on paper, but making it work in real life is a totally different thing. The very first mass produced helicopter (Sikorsky R4) first flew in january 1942, an almost useless machine made out of fabric and with a heavy radial engine, but it was just the first. Just 32 years later the YCH-53A, a massive six bladed monster, twin turbine engined, dual hydraulics, IFR equipped machine took to the skies.
The Tilt Rotor however has been in development since the mid 1950s with nothing more than the Osprey that first flew in 1989 and is still killing people, more than 30 years after its first flight.
Larger rotors are more efficient than smaller rotors, there's ever been a compromise, period.
An Osprey is nothing more than a bad airplane that hovers like a bad helicopter.
The V-22 is appearing more and more like a real waste of money. The V-22 does not efficiently replace (much less improve upon) the aircraft it was "designed" to replace. The V-22 is a huge boondoggle that only benefits the defense spending/contractor regime.
Just saw one today practicing at Bishop airport in California.(Which is in the middle of nowhere)It was white with black tail and what looked like a orange sunset on it.
I really miss being on the Truman. Was a plank owner and made the first med cruise with it.
Should have just modernized the Sikorsky 53 type helicopters and stuck with them. They were awesome. But what do grunts know? I guess ya gotta be a flag officer to blunder this bad.
The ch-53 plays a different Mission role.
@@WALTERBROADDUS the Sikorsky 53 had variations depending on the desired role. For example the HH 53 was bad ass, with machine guns (M2s) sticking out of every hole. Other variations could lift an amazing amount of weight, refuel in air and do twice the job of an osprey.
@@greorbowlfinder7078 V-22 is not a heavy lift helicopter like the H-53. It's a different aircraft for a different mission
@@tararaboomdiay7442 what's the mission of the v22 then ?
Time to bring back THE COD in a new aircraft and the S-3 Viking.
Is there anything equivalent to the Viking in terms of hunting subs as of now ?
@@connycontainer9459 Nope - the only ASW aircraft with the carrier is the Seahawk-Romeo. The P-8 Poseidon does land-based Maritime Patrol/ASW, but is another Boeing 737 with issues. (did my time in the Seahawk Bravo and Viking as the AW.
@@Mariner311 What's AW ?
I only know about this plane after reading something from a former co-pilot who was doing the whole electronics and ASW part.
It was very interesting, got me into playing some simulation on PC. They seemed like the best option for a carrier to defend against subs.
@@connycontainer9459 AW was an enlisted rating (job) - the abbreveation was for Aviation Anti-Submarine Warfare Systems Operator... we operated the sonar, radar, and other systems aboard the sub-hunting aircraft/helicopters.
@@Mariner311 Ah ok, so probably exactly what the guy I was reading about did. Still remember those different buyos for directional and omnidirectional use and different depths. One was called something like dickass, lol. Must have been such an interesting and exciting job.
Literally , the last thing I did in the military was be a test dummy in 2006 at Kirtland AFB when they got the CV-22's in and they were getting them certified for the squadron and jump operations. The pilots laughed and said it was the first time ever that they thought we were the smart ones wearing the parchutes LOL 3 Takeoffs, and neer landed in one :)
When you're sailing virgin seas, there's no one to warn you about all the rocks.