...In 1983, the Navy awarded Bell Helicopters and Boeing Aircraft (click here) a $68.7 million joint contract to design an aircraft based on the XV-15. This was the V-22, nicknamed the Osprey. It would carry two dozen geared-up marines or 10,000 pounds of weaponry, fly 2,100 nautical miles at 25,000 feet with just a single, in-air refueling, and land anywhere, no runway required.
But it never went away, propped up by genuine need, pork barrel politics, and the hope that the money already spent wasn't money wasted. Now the weird hybrid plane has entered a critical test phase called operational evaluation - the last hurdle before full production. The Osprey made it to op-eval once before, five years ago, and failed spectacularly. After an intense few years of engineering and test flights, years of tearing the plane apart and putting it back together under a fix-it-or-kill-it threat from the Pentagon, the Osprey is back. At military bases across the country, from New River Marine Corps Air Base in North Carolina to Edwards Air Force Base in California, pilots and engineers are testing the plane under combat conditions: extreme heat and cold, desert sand, high-altitude flying, aircraft carrier takeoffs. If all goes well, the evaluation will end in July and construction of the fleet will begin in 2006, and the first Osprey squadron will fly in fall 2007....
The application of asking two different military companies to come together to produce an aircraft that would do it all. It was doomed from the beginning. The Osprey is the epitome of American arrogance. "Americans can do anything. For money I mean." If the US military wants a plane that hovers then make it so.
I can only imagine sitting at a drafting table with Bell Helicopter and Boeing engineers as they began to build this 'idea' of military perfection. Says the Bell engineer to the Boeing engineer, "No, no the engine can't go there because the propellers are on top at some point. And don't forget the larger hydraulics engine so it can tilt the blades. That is paramount to the design of this thing."
Just as a side note:
EL SEGUNDO, Calif., May 16, 2015 – Boeing [NYSE: BA] (click here) is disappointed by the loss of the Centenario satellite on May 16, 2015. We stand ready to assist the Mexican government in any way we can to enable our customer to meet its communications needs for the people of Mexico. Centenario was the first of two satellites Boeing is building for the government’s Mexsat telecommunications system. We will continue to partner with the Mexican government to ensure its second satellite, Morelos 3, will be ready for launch later this year.
Now, Boeing gets to build the satellite all over again and make twice the money. It is a matter of who is going to pay for it, Mexico or Russia.
The Osprey is powered by Two Rolls-Royce AE1107C, 6,150 shp (4,586 kW) each. The gross capacity of each Osprey in lift including it's own weight plus freight is 52,600 lbs. (23,859 kg).
This is the specs on the Sea Stallion.
The CH-53A (otherwise known as RH-53D Sea Stallion transport helicopter) carries a crew of four; pilot, copilot, crew chief, and an aerial observer, a load of 38 troops, 24 litters with medical attendants, an internal cargo load of 8,000 pounds (3,600 kg) or an external load of 13,000 pounds (5,900 kg) on the single-point sling hook. The CH-53A is equipped with a pair of 7.62 mm M60 machine guns that point out to each side of the fuselage.
Between the internal capacity as a transport of personnel, the lifting power exceeds that of the Osprey. The Sea Stallion was bigger with more capacity, but, alas the Osprey was the ideal helicopter that could turn into a plane. I would want to know what the fuel consumption is like for each of those machines? I betcha the Sea Stallion got better fuel mileage or however the military measures that stuff. It didn't have to use it's fuel for rotating engines. Isn't the purpose of aircraft and helicopters to fly long enough to make a difference in a hostile environment? War basically.
WWII was won with very simple military machines. They were easy to build, they were easy to maintain and they were RELIABLE to operate. Granted there are improvements made that are beneficial to missions today, but, there is nothing like the tried and true technology of plain, old, everyday designs and functions.
The Sea Stallions, as the above article points out, were used in an attempt to rescue the Iranian hostages. The operation failed due to a sand storm. Hello? You know here is the thing, there are ways of making sure there is no weather pattern existing or expected to cause a mission to fail. Besides the lives of our military, there is the chance of capture that will ultimately compromise the mission and those machines are expensive.
I can understand risking the odds if there are lives in the balance that need to be removed to a hospital, but, to carry out a mission where the hostages are okay for the most part. So, President Carter took the heat on this one.
I remember the reporting of the activities in the room where all the National Security Council and military gathered to witness the bin Laden raid. At one point the report comes in that one of the helicopters was down and had to be destroyed and abandoned. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs (Admiral Mullens) and the Defense Secretary (Bob Gates) look at each other as if this mission was going to fail. I guess helicopters are a chronic problem for the military no matter how much is spent or how sophisticated they are.
I have a wish list for the US Military and the only item on it is:
Military equipment and machines that protect the life of our soldiers and any one aboard; even in training exercises.
There are limits to the imagineering for the military and the Osprey is the best example yet.
