VTOL in 1965, never knew of this before...

[MandoWookie]

I happened upon this recently, the XC-142, while on a wiki wander. They had something like this flying in the 60s, but it took how long to get the Osprey operational? Amazing.


https://youtu.be/aZoHrlPZd2w

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTV_XC-142

Ps I could have sworn I posted this before, but I can't find it.

[Joe in PNG]

The concept is simple enough. The hard part is engineering something in case of engine failure.

[TC215]

I always liked the Convair POGO, from the early 50’s:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_XFY_Pogo

[Stephanie B]

I have a 1960s-era book that posits the air transport system of 1975. Civilian variants of the C-142 figured in for shorter-range city-to-city traffic.

The technology of the time wasn't really up to it. Given how long it took to bring the V-22 into service (about 24 years), one might argue that things still aren't there.

Unlike the V-22, the C-142 could land and then take off with the wing set at 0deg incidence.

[Edster]

My Dad worked at Bell Helicopter. Following the XV-15 that later evolved into the V22 was part of growing up.

A few of my memories:

The engineering for engine failure involved a transfer system where either engine could drive both sets of rotors.

One of the more challenging aspects was transition from vertical flight to forward and from forward to vertical. There are many opportunities to stall. As I recall, advances in computer systems to help monitor and assist this were a significant factor.

Finding qualified pilots was a challenge in the early days. They needed to be able to fly both fixed-wing and rotor, then needed to understand the transition. Think about how rudder pedals might act differently depending on the mode you're in. Again, I think improvements in computerized control assistance helped here.

Support for the program waxed and waned under different administrations. There always seemed to be those with the sentiment of, "We have helicopters. We have planes. Why do we want something that does both?"

I was a kid through most of these days so my memory may not be 100% accurate. As an adult, I do still remember my Dad's mood after the 2000 Marana crash -- he was pretty down.

[MandoWookie]

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2020/03/23/the-corps-is-axing-all-of-its-tank-battalions-and-cutting-grunt-units/

Well, buried in this article it mentions the Corps is also disbanding there V-22 squadrons. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the Marines the largest users of the V-22, and basically the main reason it was developed? Does this mean that the V-22 may end up like XC-142, another neat concept that didn't work out in practice?

[RevolverRob]

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2020/03/23/the-corps-is-axing-all-of-its-tank-battalions-and-cutting-grunt-units/

Well, buried in this article it mentions the Corps is also disbanding there V-22 squadrons. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't the Marines the largest users of the V-22, and basically the main reason it was developed? Does this mean that the V-22 may end up like XC-142, another neat concept that didn't work out in practice?

They are disbanding a single V-22 squadron, Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 264 (VMM-264). That is one of 13 combat capable Medium Tiltrotor Squadrons along with a 14th training unit (VMMT-204). So, after this disbanding there will still be an even dozen combat VMM units and a 13th in the form of a training unit.

Also bear in mind that the Navy has ordered 44 V-22s which are already being put into place and should be fully operational next year, prior to 2019 they had 0 in service. The Navy units were trained in the Marine Corps training unit and will certainly move to pick up quite a bit of the transportation-type roles that the Marines previously performed for the Navy using their V-22s.

This is all part of the Commandant's effort to streamline the Marine Corps and actually help establish better mission statements and guidelines for the Corps. I commend the Commandant on those efforts, both to reduce potential bloat, but also to more clearly define the role of the USMC such that mission creep can be better avoided.

I admit the loss of USMC Tank Corps is a bit disheartening to me. I think about armor as the lifeblood of a mechanized military force. But, in fact, today it really isn't. Air superiority and air-space control are far more important. The days of tank battles are all but gone, for us at least. With the precision of unmanned drones, precise munitions, cruise missiles, real-time reconnaissance, etc. A tank battalion leading the charge is almost as archaic as a pith-helmeted officer leading his men over the wire into no-man's land with a whistle in his mouth and a pistol in his hand.

[RichK]

MandoWookie, as I read the article, the plan is to deactivate HMM-264, one of the 18 tiltrotor squadrons the USMC was scheduled to have as of FY19.

[Doc_Glock]

The concept is simple enough. The hard part is engineering something in case of engine failure.

Can an Osprey function on one engine!?

[TC215]

Can an Osprey function on one engine!?

Yep.

[jeep45238]

If you're in Dayton, OH you can see the real deal. The experimental hanger is awesome, and the museum as a whole puts the DC aerospace museum to shame in my opinion.

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/195770/chance-voughtltv-xc-142a/

[MandoWookie]

They are disbanding a single V-22 squadron, Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 264 (VMM-264). That is one of 13 combat capable Medium Tiltrotor Squadrons along with a 14th training unit (VMMT-204). So, after this disbanding there will still be an even dozen combat VMM units and a 13th in the form of a training unit.

Also bear in mind that the Navy has ordered 44 V-22s which are already being put into place and should be fully operational next year, prior to 2019 they had 0 in service. The Navy units were trained in the Marine Corps training unit and will certainly move to pick up quite a bit of the transportation-type roles that the Marines previously performed for the Navy using their V-22s.




Ah, okay. The way I was reading it , sounded like they were doing away with it entirely like the tanks. Which I still think may not be the best idea. I understand modern weapons make the M1 no longer an unstoppable juggernaut astride the battlefield, but completely removing the option of having a fast moving mobile bunker capable of inflicting emotional trauma on anything in line of sight might seem like a bad idea in hindsight. But that's just my opinion from the bleachers.

[Joe in PNG]

Can an Osprey function on one engine!?

They had to work out a shaft system where one engine could turn the prop in the other.

[RevolverRob]

Ah, okay. The way I was reading it , sounded like they were doing away with it entirely like the tanks. Which I still think may not be the best idea. I understand modern weapons make the M1 no longer an unstoppable juggernaut astride the battlefield, but completely removing the option of having a fast moving mobile bunker capable of inflicting emotional trauma on anything in line of sight might seem like a bad idea in hindsight. But that's just my opinion from the bleachers.

I tend to agree, but also recognize that modern munitions and even IEDs have advanced sufficiently to make current armor less effective and mobile on the battlefield.

One thing I'd love to see is more refined weapons systems for the Osprey that perhaps allow a few units per squadron to function as VTOL-capable ground support aircraft something like a combined helicopter gunship and a C130-based gunship. I know they've had success with remote operated .50 cal GAUs. But let's get a little crazy mount a couple of 30mm MK44 Bushmaster IIs and hang a bunch of rockets out the ass-end like an AC-130 and basically turn it into a mini-AC130. :eek:

[MandoWookie]

I tend to agree, but also recognize that modern munitions and even IEDs have advanced sufficiently to make current armor less effective and mobile on the battlefield.

One thing I'd love to see is more refined weapons systems for the Osprey that perhaps allow a few units per squadron to function as VTOL-capable ground support aircraft something like a combined helicopter gunship and a C130-based gunship. I know they've had success with remote operated .50 cal GAUs. But let's get a little crazy mount a couple of 30mm MK44 Bushmaster IIs and hang a bunch of rockets out the ass-end like an AC-130 and basically turn it into a mini-AC130. :eek:


I'm just thinking that all the things that make armor more vulnerable, what would they do to all the other things on the battlefield? If it can disable a tank, what are your chances in something softer skinned?

And a baby V-22 Spooky working out of the middle of nowhere waiting to dispense unpleasantness does sound like a moral booster.

[rayrevolver]

If you're in Dayton, OH you can see the real deal. The experimental hanger is awesome, and the museum as a whole puts the DC aerospace museum to shame in my opinion.

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/195770/chance-voughtltv-xc-142a/

Wright-Patt is an amazing musuem. I took these photos 2 years ago.

Don't forget that the AFSOC CV-22s have been getting things done for a long time now, but without much press... which is a good thing.

The TF/TA RADAR is amazing. For the pilots, just imagine flying in the mountains, on the deck, in zero visibility with the tops of trees whizzing by! Ok, on the deck is an exaggeration. They flew at 100' AGL. :cool:

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49703546178_3d8d8b35af_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2iJ8ECJ)

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49704078191_07684bff37_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2iJboMn)

[rayrevolver]

I tend to agree, but also recognize that modern munitions and even IEDs have advanced sufficiently to make current armor less effective and mobile on the battlefield.

One thing I'd love to see is more refined weapons systems for the Osprey that perhaps allow a few units per squadron to function as VTOL-capable ground support aircraft something like a combined helicopter gunship and a C130-based gunship. I know they've had success with remote operated .50 cal GAUs. But let's get a little crazy mount a couple of 30mm MK44 Bushmaster IIs and hang a bunch of rockets out the ass-end like an AC-130 and basically turn it into a mini-AC130. :eek:

As with most new technology, new techniques have to be developed. The V-22s can beat the gunships to most places by a few hours. Oops!

The initial Ramp Mounted Weapons System was a 7.62mm 240 (I think). There was a need for a 50cal so that was adopted down the road.

The coolest thing, but I am not sure if it was every really fielded was the IDWS. This is the remote controlled turret in one of the hell holes.
https://gizmodo.com/the-v-22-ospreys-new-belly-gun-rotates-360-degrees-to-f-5940458

For the most part, I do not think there is any appetite for an MV-22 Gunship.

[TGS]

The US Navy is purchasing Ospreys to replace their Greyhounds for COD. This is not a mission performed by USMC tiltrotor squadrons on the Navy's behalf. Ospreys are primarily deployed within the Air Combat Element (ACE) of a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) on amphibious assault ships, not CVNs.

The .50 cal turret was desired from the beginning but the weight makes it unfeasible for the "Over-the-Horizon" mission sets that the Osprey was designed for. At best it's a niche system. Super freakin' effective if you're using the Osprey for short range non-expeditionary shit, which is exactly what the USMC is trying to get away from (and was very vocal about getting away from even when I was in from 2007-2011).

The idea of an Osprey Gunship isn't feasible within the context of the MEU, which is the bread and butter of the Corps' reason for existence. There is no room to store an extra Osprey Gunship per deployed ACE. There's no room, to the point that we still use Hueys even when Seahawks are tenfold better aircraft in every way.....and even then, the Hueys are dual purpose. Whereas the Army uses strictly Apaches for attack flights, we send out pairs: 1 Huey gunship, 1 Apache. The Huey, with its side mounted crew chiefs, offers greater situational awareness to the team, and they have some pretty interesting attack formations. An Osprey Gunship doesn't really fit into the MEUs mission set, and the only way to deploy them would be to curtail other assets that are actually needed.

On top of that, an Osprey Gunship would be a terrible gunship. The entire point of a gunship is a floating battlestation with extended loiter capabilities. An Osprey gunship would be a flying brick and probably no more TOT than a skid, while placing an extreme logistical strain on the MEU.

TOTS.

[rayrevolver]

The .50 cal turret was desired from the beginning but the weight makes it unfeasible for the "Over-the-Horizon" mission sets that the Osprey was designed for. At best it's a niche system. Super freakin' effective if you're using the Osprey for short range non-expeditionary shit, which is exactly what the USMC is trying to get away from (and was very vocal about getting away from even when I was in from 2007-2011).


This makes sense. The 50cal RMWS was requested by another user. From my knot hole, I have no idea who ended up using the 50s after if was approved. I was not on the program when this happened but I was close by, so-to-speak.

There are 2 "new" V-22s running around these days: Japanese and Navy COD.

The COD version info below. Notice the new sponsons that look like nut sacks.
https://theaviationist.com/2019/12/19/first-navy-cmv-22b-osprey-in-cod-carrier-onboard-delivery-high-visibility-color-scheme-makes-maiden-flight/

Japanese:
https://theaviationist.com/2017/08/26/here-is-japans-first-v-22-the-first-osprey-tilt-rotor-aircraft-for-a-military-outside-of-the-u-s/



I suppose for folks that don't know, there are also these shiny sumbiches:
https://i0.wp.com/cdn.videos.rollcall.com/boeing/2015/03/V22_MarineOne.jpg?fit=1240,698

[TGS]

This makes sense. The 50cal RMWS was requested by another user. From my knot hole, I have no idea who ended up using the 50s after if was approved. I was not on the program when this happened but I was close by, so-to-speak.


We definitely wanted them given the limitations of a ramp mounted gun, but yeah.

Also a derpa-derp note that I can't edit: In my last post, I wrote "pairs of a Huey and Apache". That should obviously read Cobra. :o

[mmc45414]

I searched, but found no current articles, causing me to assume no, but are they approved yet for hauling the POTUS?


I suppose for folks that don't know, there are also these shiny sumbiches:
https://i0.wp.com/cdn.videos.rollcall.com/boeing/2015/03/V22_MarineOne.jpg?fit=1240,698

[TOTS]

The idea of an Osprey Gunship isn't feasible within the context of the MEU, which is the bread and butter of the Corps' reason for existence. There is no room to store an extra Osprey Gunship per deployed ACE.

On top of that, an Osprey Gunship would be a terrible gunship. The entire point of a gunship is a floating battlestation with extended loiter capabilities. An Osprey gunship would be a flying brick and probably no more TOT than a skid, while placing an extreme logistical strain on the MEU.

@TOTS (https://pistol-forum.com/member.php?u=14029).

Man, solid post, all good info and sums it up nicely.

Couple of points: The IDWS was developed but never really fielded or used outside of MAWTS-1 (think USMC-wide Top Gun school)

The purpose of the MV-22 was to replace the CH-46 as the future Assault Support platform; the whole Air Combat Element of the afore mentioned MEU is built around this role with the AH/UH-1s providing attached/detached escort roles (and, to a lesser extent, ill add the AV-8 harriers and JSFs as well, as detached escorts). Thus, the concept of a V-22 gunship was fundamentally a non-starter for the Marine Corps. Thats more in AFSOC’s wheel house.

The Osprey has some very useful and unique capabilities; however, they come with some limitations that make it hard to operate in a gunship role. They make horrible helicopters, for one. In “helicopter mode” they are much less maneuverable and slower than helicopters. This translates into more exposure to threats in this regime. Not good in a gunfight. Adding armor and heavier weapons/ ammo (i.e., .50 cals) or operating it at higher speeds tends to remove it from the multi-purpose roles that the USMC demands from all platforms (and bleeds into roles played by our fixed-wing squadrons).

Osprey squadrons already have about a dozen item long Mission Essential Task List that their basic, just out of school nugget pilot must maintain proficiency and currency in. Adding a gunship role adds a tremendous amount of requirements in training syllabi, weapons employment, and munitions expertise that is quite frankly, unsupportable. Thus, dedicated shooter squadrons (platforms), the HMLAs.

[TOTS]

And no one’s talking about shooting Hellfire missiles from V-22s? We’re actually doing that already!

[rayrevolver]

And no one’s talking about shooting Hellfire missiles from V-22s? We’re actually doing that already!

Pics or it didn't happen! Haha

[Stephanie B]

I suppose for folks that don't know, there are also these shiny sumbiches:
https://i0.wp.com/cdn.videos.rollcall.com/boeing/2015/03/V22_MarineOne.jpg?fit=1240,698

Didn't the Secret Service look at the V-22 and say "Nope, no way"?

[TC215]

Didn't the Secret Service look at the V-22 and say "Nope, no way"?

Last I read, the presidential helicopter squadron has several, but they just use them to fly presidential support personnel. They’re still not approved to carry the president.

[mmc45414]

Last I read, the presidential helicopter squadron has several, but they just use them to fly presidential support personnel. They’re still not approved to carry the president.
That was my understanding also, but when I tried to research there was a mention of current FLOTUS being transported on one.

Maybe they can use them for Secret Service to get on the ground ahead of Marine One?

[TC215]

That was my understanding also, but when I tried to research there was a mention of current FLOTUS being transported on one.

Maybe they can use them for Secret Service to get on the ground ahead of Marine One?

A couple years ago, when I was still at the local agency here, I was part of the planning of a presidential visit due to being over an element of our SWAT team. Our team worked with the Secret Service CAT guys. They had a contingency plan for everything...But the Osprey’s were never mentioned at all (in hindsight, I wish I would have asked about them). They did bring one of the Marine One helicopters down, though the President flew in on AF1 and never used the helicopter. It was there solely as part of one of the emergency plans/scenarios.

[rayrevolver]

Didn't the Secret Service look at the V-22 and say "Nope, no way"?

This is not directed at you but I'm gonna vent!

Unfortunately, the V-22 program will never shake its early failures. EVERY article, even the most recent, includes words like "troubled" etc when the V-22 is the subject.

It's tiring and still pisses me off. Most folks I know just back from flying them in the real world appreciate the Osprey.

Do a little reading on how many Marines were killed by the Harrier during flight test and then in training. That program doesn't seem to have the same stigma. Maybe because it was before widespread internet access?

I'm off to find my safe space.
SERENITY NOW!!! ;)

[TGS]

As for HMX-1....the majority of aircraft in HMX-1 are not purposed to carry POTUS, including yesteryears' CH-46 and CH-53s in HMX-1 being replaced by the MV-22s. The only aircraft in HMX-1 that carry POTUS are the "white tops", so named for their livery, and consist of the one off custom built Sikorsky VH-92 which just replaced the VH-3 Sea King. There's a precious few VH-60s, but I don't know what they purpose those for as opposed to the VH-92. Maybe smaller LZs? IDK.

The rest of HMX-1 are all green, and carry the detail, strap hangers, and other support personnel.

ETA: The reason for the MV-22 not being produced as a VH-22 probably has more to do with there being no reason to use an Osprey to fly such short distances. You don't need the capabilities the Osprey was designed for when you have a VC-25 warmed up waiting for you. That's just a guess on my part.


Maybe they can use them for Secret Service to get on the ground ahead of Marine One?

Details can basically broken down into three "phases". The advance team, jump team, and plane team.

In other words, the detail is already there well in advance, regardless of MV-22 or not.



Do a little reading on how many Marines were killed by the Harrier during flight test and then in training. That program doesn't seem to have the same stigma. Maybe because it was before widespread internet access?

This is a great point and goes beyond the Harrier.

Both the Huey and Blackhawk killed way more people in development than the Osprey. It just so happened that when the Osprey crashed, they happened to do it while loaded with a squad of marines or a full press avail, so it got big news.

When you look at the data, the Osprey is either one of the safest rotor-winged platforms in service, or one of the dangerous. I think it's portrayed as more dangerous when you look at accident data that collates based off "fatality or $2million in damage". It's an expensive craft, so when it crashes it tends to cost more than more traditional helos.....hence certain safety ratings make it sound more dangerous, when it's actually not.

The CH-46 on the other hand which the MV-22 replaced in their entirety, had a very solid reputation for killing Marines. I don't think anyone was truly sorry to see those go.

[Stephanie B]

That was my understanding also, but when I tried to research there was a mention of current FLOTUS being transported on one.

There's precedent for that. The Secret Service refused to approve presidential use of a C-87, but FLOTUS and senior members of the administration were flown on it. They got a C-54 for POTUS (Sacred Cow).