Home » Air » V-22s In Af-Pak: Faster, Higher, Longer

V-22s In Af-Pak: Faster, Higher, Longer

By Colin Clark Monday, November 16th, 2009 11:16 am
Posted in Air, International, Land, Naval

Now that the V-22s have landed in Afghanistan, it’s time to take a look at how they will be used. Robbin Laird, a defense consultant who works for the Marines — among other clients — got a chance to interview the flight crews of VMM-261, headed by Lt. Col. A. J. Bianca, about the concepts of operations they expected to follow. We’ve got links to the interviews, an interview with Laird and links to video of the V-22 teams undergoing deployment to Afghanistan and some of their training.

The top benefit of the V-22 in Afghanistan is a simple one, Laird said. It is not a helicopter. “Rotorcraft have been used for a long time in Afghanistan and the bad guys know how to target them,” he noted. Of course, that experience for many of the older Afghans includes using Stinger missiles against the Soviet’s helicopters.

The V-22 “gives the Marines a lot of advantages,” Laird said. The exact operating ceiling is classified but these Ospreys are operating at more than 20,000 feet.

In one of the interviews Laird did, he quoted a Marine pilot who noted that the Osprey does have limitations when it flies at its highest altitudes. “Now obviously, we can’t carry passengers at our highest altitudes. We can certainly carry cargo. We can go to get passengers and we can carry passengers down at lower altitudes. But flying at higher altitudes makes you a whole lot faster.

“And I see that really glossed over when this airplane is briefed, you know. The average ground person, or someone who’s not a pilot, or even a rotary pilot, may not fully understand it. At higher altitudes, you’re about a hundred knots faster than you are on the surface, in any airplane, Tiltrotor or otherwise,” the Marine told Laird.

Second, the Ospreys afford the Marines much greater range than do helicopters. Helos have to land much more frequently to refuel and Laird says the V-22s in Afghanistan “have been able to avoid many attacks because of their mobility.”

Also, the V-22 can provide the Marines with a more effective envelopment tool. Suppose a UAV identifies a target that is not susceptible to a precision strike and a helo can’t get there in time. A CH-46 or a 53 needs two FARPs to travel the distance an Osprey can cover without landing.

“I’ve got to bring the helo up one or two times and refuel it, and that’s a lot of hours,” Laird noted. “The Osprey is there in 90 minutes or, at least, much more quickly than any helo could arrive.” In some cases, the FARP for a helo mission will have to be established, eating up valuable time and increasing the vulnerability of both the helos and the ground crews supporting them.

“If you think back to Vietnam, that was one of our biggest vulnerabilities — having all these huge fuel dumps scattered around the country,” Laird said.

The other benefit of the Osprey’s extended range and speed, compared to a helo in terrain like Afghanistan’s, is that a smaller number of Ospreys “can support several combat groups at once.”

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

	Colonial-Marine November 16th, 2009 at 6:26 pm We should find a way to strap some weapons on these if they are working as good as they say. However the large diameter of the rotors in forward flight makes rocket pods or missles on the wing impratical. Perhaps it could carry some CBU-87s or Mk.82s however.
	CharlesHouston November 16th, 2009 at 8:45 pm Haven’t the Marines come up with the nose mounted machine gun? Of course they have always had a tail aspect machine gun, like a 7.62 mm I think. But these aircraft would most likely find a use for a defensive system when they were in helicopter mode, so the rotors are well out of the way.
	JW Edwards November 16th, 2009 at 10:39 pm There’s a belly gun in development now, but I’m not sure of it’s status at this point. It gives the aircraft a 360 degree hemisphere with software lockouts for the prop arcs, and it provides ‘see-through’ remote targeting for the gunner. I would guess it’s somewhat analogous to the old systems that were used in the B-29s. I don’t remember what armament was specified, though.
	joe November 17th, 2009 at 12:06 am Some (not all) of the V-22’s in Afghanastan do have the belly mounted weapons systems (unfortionately it’s a 5.56mm for defensive protection not a reach out and touch somebody .50 or 20mm type). And the V-22’s airframe doesn’t lend itself to add on weaopns very well because of the way the airframe is designed. But what if some crazy Marine Wing-nut somehow during the dark of night buried behind all the forgotten toys, Frankensteined a V-22’s Aft airframe with a AH-1’s Cockpit system…you’d have one hell of a fire-power way clear of the the Tilt-rotors, 20mm chain gun up front and possably some areas to to hang some missle pods (once again all clear of the Rotar system). Fore and Aft stacked Pilot/ Weapons Officer & Co-pilot alignment instead of side by side. Oh, it would be ugly, but it would be a Mean ugly!
	Cole November 17th, 2009 at 12:35 am Observations: * There are often far stronger headwinds at altitude, and the assured need for oxygen. * Due to reduced payload and internal cabin space, for many missions, one CH-47F would carry the same load as two MV-22 requiring either two MV-22s or one making two trips compared to a single trip for the Chinook. * Mission radius of CH-47 without aux fuel is 230nm compared to 390nm for MV-22 with 24 sardined troops. The distance from Lashkar Gah to Farah or Kandahar, or areas north and south is under 200 KILOMETERS which is a half hour flight in a MV-22 and just under an hour in a helicopter. No huge time savings there. Division sectors for Army and Marine forces are almost never as large as the mission radius of a MV-22. Helicopter range is more than adequate for non special ops missions. * MV-22 carrying an external (sling) load flies no faster than a Chinook or Blackhawk. The HOGE ceiling for an MV-22 is 5400′ according to the Boeing site. The CH-47F HOGE ceiling is considerably higher. Camp Bastion is only at 2536′.
	Cole November 17th, 2009 at 12:36 am Continued: * The adversary has had decades to figure out how to down helicopters…with apparently little success as of late considering how few helicopters have been shot down in OIF and OEF. Friendly rotorcraft makers and services using them have had decades to improve survivability. Check out this article where a Chinook somehow took an RPG round on the ground (as an MV-22 would) and kept on flying: http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/1571160.html The MV-22 requires 1721 gallons to fill. The CH-47F around 1000 gallons. The UH-60 takes around 360 gallons. Which aircraft is easier to supply with vulnerable ground fuel trucks and convoys at Lashkar Gah and Kandahar?
	Jerry November 17th, 2009 at 6:23 am Why do you quote this obvious non-expert on helos. Robbin Laird is just a highly paid stenographer used by the marines to dupe lazy reporters, otherwise she wouldn’t pass on this obvious BS. The CH-53E and CH-47F both have greater range than the V-22. The ranges you see quoted were old goals, read the 2005 OPEVAL to see the V-22 goes only half as far. The spinmasters often assume the V-22 is flying with internal aux tanks, while helos are not.
	robert November 17th, 2009 at 5:02 am we are Helos, We are Helos, We are Helos, Crash and Burn, Crash and Burn.
	rjohnson November 17th, 2009 at 2:24 pm I still see the V-22 program as a congressional boondoggle. A Texas senator got his “jobs” program, and the marines got the white elephant. I hope it doesn’t cost more good men and women in uniform their lives. If it does, the blood is on congress’ hands.
	daveLSD34 November 17th, 2009 at 3:21 pm joe, could not agree more. Marines adapt, overcome and improvise. Ugly with some short and long distant whupp ass, better than pretty and defenseless. Air Force A-10’s are very ugly but effective, kinda like my prom date back in the day.
	daTRUTH November 17th, 2009 at 4:29 pm Wow.… The anti-Osprey pundits are still prolific! Let’s keep in mind that this isn’t a helicopter nor an airplane. it’s a Tiltrotor, ment to be flown and used like a TILTROTOR The Osprey has more than 150% range increase on the next size helicopter. Moreover, if they are CV’s then it’s about 170%. It has carried HMMWV at 160 KTS. And no, a Blackhawk, –47, nor a –53 can or had does that! The comments from the troops and the users should continue to reinforce any of the FACTS that the Osprey is a valuable tool and continues to OUTPERFORM most other rotorcraft in it’s class. I does have some limitations, HOGE is one. But, it is sure no White Elephant, a “jobs” program, or a disaster. It’s very very funny to ready the ignorant people who post on these Blogs. Most have no understanding of basic metrology, aircraft performance, or operational need of the US Military.
	Daniel Russ November 17th, 2009 at 4:52 pm I actually created ads for the V-22 program in the mid 80s working for a Richmond ad agency that handled the Allison Gas Turbine Division of GM. That was one of my accounts. The continuing issue with the V-22 is one of weight. The more guns you put on, the fewer troops, less distance etcetera. So if you upgunned it enough you would lose some of the advantages ( operational range and payload). And it’s too fast to be escorted by gunships. That said, despite twenty five years of critics, it has risen from the dead more often than a Zombie in a George Romero flick. And it sure has done fairly well and is fairly liked by its users. Respectfully, Daniel Russ Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com
	John S November 17th, 2009 at 10:08 pm More’s the pitty that the MV-22 was procured to replace the CH-46 Sea Knight, not the CH-47 Chinook.
	Guest November 18th, 2009 at 4:37 pm Apples and oranges payload comparison. The Foxtrot Chinook is a heavy lift platform. The Osprey is a medium lift platform.
	Guest November 18th, 2009 at 4:41 pm “And it’s too fast to be escorted by gunships.” Obviously you have no gouge on the performance of the Zulu model Cobra.
	Daniel Russ November 18th, 2009 at 6:02 pm No, I have no gauge on the performance of the Zulu Cobra, but if you add altitude in the equation, the Zulu Cobra probably would not be able to provide escort even if it was as fast as an Osprey. Respectfully, Daniel Russ Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com
	Riceball November 18th, 2009 at 7:24 pm The whole issue of being able to fire through the prop/rotor arc of the Ospreys is kind of funny when you consider that way back during WW I they managed to figure out how to succefully shoot a machine gun through the props of a plane and the tech level was a lot lower back then. I wonder if you could create some kind of interrupt system that would allow for the firing or rockets through the Osprey’s props or are rockets too slow fire through without hitting?
	daveLSD34 November 18th, 2009 at 9:38 pm Riceball: If they/us could do it in 1918 then we can do it now. Arming V-22’s would completely screw up the beauracratic (sp) bs that evolves from the introduction of new/cutting edge technology for our troops. Some hack Senator or Congressman or Lobbyist would not get his/her ego stroked becuz they did not think outside the box when this V-22 program stood up. B-52 bombers have been around and effective for 50+ years, the Cobra is still flying CAS missions, but who knew in the 80’s that we would need the Osprey to pick up and deliver hell from above to the Taliban/Al Queda. Just do what is needed to assist the grunts on the ground to get the job done. Want the job done right, gotta have the right tools. Tim the Tool Man Taylor and Al Borlund could modify a V-22 to get it right. Let us, the USA move thru this and get the job done.
	Daniel Russ November 18th, 2009 at 10:13 pm I don’t think it’s a matter of firing through the propellers. They could install a gun on the plane somewhere and slave it to the pilot. The problem is still weight. Consider that 2000 rounds of 7.62mm ammo in boxes weighs about 350 pounds. Which equals about two troopers. 2000 rounds would be minimum what the Osprey could carry but that doesn’t count the gun itself or the carriage mechanism. Respectfully, Daniel Russ Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com
	Capt America November 19th, 2009 at 3:23 am The Marines commissioned a confidential report by an independent group to access Marine ops in Afghanistan in 2002 at its “Camp Rhino.” Generals expected the report to rave about the V-22 potential, but the study concluded the CH-46E provided better support than V-22s could. Why? All the fuel in Afghanistan was flown in by KC-130s. The V-22 is twice the size of a CH-46E with six times the installed horsepower and burns three times more fuel per mile, but doesn’t carry any more payload. If one looks at the actual performance data (rather than advertised V-22 specs) The V-22s cabin is 25% smaller while its small proprotors can’t lift more than the CH-46Es. (The Phrogs are now restricted to less than half payload due to airframe fatigue) As for the post who claims the CH-47F is a heavyweight class lifter while the V-22 is a medium class, what’s the point of that spin. The V-22 is 50% larger than the CH-47F (empty weight) yet can lift only half as much! The V-22 is a heavy weight size aircraft with poor medium lift performance, about the same as an CH-60L.
	VancBob November 19th, 2009 at 9:52 am They say it isn’t a helo. Will they still say that after one gets shot down while landing in the helo configuration? And what’s up with designing it to the maximum limits with no guns? No room for upgrades? Maybe they can screw on steel plates to the backs of the rotors for firing an unsynchronized gun through the arc of the blades. Worked in WW1. We it sort of worked. Why do they build something like this? Or the new F-35B? What have they got against Marine Air? Give them new upgraded Ch-53’s and the A-10’s the AF doesn’t deserve and get out of their way.
	SkysoldierRecon November 19th, 2009 at 3:03 pm Maybe we can build an attack version of the Osprey..? Nah, hopefully some Marine will do wat was said above..IMPROVISE. Those Chinooks are just big targets, so many have gone down. watever happend to the COIN plane? Air-cover..man you can’t beat it..
	George November 20th, 2009 at 1:33 am Gee, and I thought we had a method of shooting through the propeller arc during WW I!
	crewdog 6172 December 2nd, 2009 at 7:38 am I was out there last year with the v-22. And let me tell you. They did not do as well as the marine corps is saying. I know that for a fact. Ask any of the v-22 crew dogs if they can spin on deck for more than 15 min in the summer without over heating there mix boxes. Or ask them how many missions the ch46e had to pick up for the due to lack of up a/c… oh and by the way they keep saying the phrog can’t due what it does. Why were the first ones in and the last ones coming out of Iraq cause were are dependable unlike the v-22 so semper fi
	pennst98 December 2nd, 2009 at 3:41 pm George.….yes we can strap weapons on the engines and make it fire through the propellers, assuming that doesn’t break the wings or change the aerodynamics…which it most certainly would. but the way this thing flies the weapons would be inoperable on take off and landing (pointing up into the sky).…and that’s when you need them the most.
	JCitizen December 2nd, 2009 at 5:08 pm I would think he was surely referring to a mainframe mount, not the engine sponsons.
	Richard February 12th, 2010 at 11:30 pm Hey! why didn’t they get the Contractor’s that Build that DAMN thing to go out on Test flights, since they said it was a good A/C. How many Marines were Kill, cause of it. And if that thing gets shot at and lose a blade lets see how well those pilots are to bring it down. At least a ch47 or ch46,ch34ch53 has a fighting chance. that thing. lets see how it does in a HOT LZ. and will be reading it in the papers, like everything else they say it was a Mech problem not gun fire.
	JCitizen February 13th, 2010 at 12:13 am Pretty good idea, Skysoldier!
	phrogdriver February 28th, 2010 at 2:14 pm It’s still WAY faster than a Cobra, even the Zulu.