https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a7883/the-ospreys-real-problem-isnt-safety-its-money-8347657/
πόλλ' οἶδ' ἀλώπηξ,ἀλλ' ἐχῖνος ἓν μέγα πόλλ' οἶδ' ἀλώπηξ,ἀλλ' ἐχῖνος ἓν μέγα
The Osprey's Real Problem Isn't Safety—It's Money
No other modern military aircraft evokes the reaction generated by the Osprey. It's an engineering model and a target for abuse—and when it fails, as it did in yesterday's non-lethal crash that injured five Air Force crew members, the critics pile on. But this hand-wringing misses the true debate over the V-22. The Osprey a capable aircraft that has had only one fatal crash in combat and is among the Marines' safest rotorcraft, but the battle to prove that it is affordable is far from over.
BY JOE PAPPALARDO
PUBLISHED: JUN 13, 2012
A Legacy of Fixes
The Osprey is not the same aircraft that was tested decades ago. Engineers have solved many of the problems that gave the aircraft its bad reputation.
HINKY HYDRAULICS
Problem: Titanium hydraulic lines leading to the nacelles used to rub against wire harnesses. This created holes in the lines that caused fires; in 2000 one such fire contributed to a crash that killed four Marines.
Update: By 2005, the problematic hydraulic lines had been rerouted. They are now easier to access for evaluation and repair.
DANGEROUS DESCENTS
Problem: Rotorcraft that descend too quickly at slow speeds can lose lift if the rotor dips too far into its own downwash. This is called vortex ring state—an Osprey in VRS can lose lift on one side and flip; 19 Marines died in one such accident during the aircraft's development.
Update: Ospreys have audio and visual warnings that alert pilots when VRS conditions start to form. Pilots can tilt the rotors forward to escape, if the aircraft has enough altitude to maneuver.
UNDERARMED FOR HOT LZS
Problem: Ospreys fly into landing zones that are defended by enemy fire (hot LZs). Critics once complained about the craft's lack of armaments.
Update: Some Ospreys now have 7.62-mm GAU miniguns mounted in their bellies; they are remotely operated by the crew inside the aircraft.
Costs and Benefits
No other modern military aircraft evokes the reaction generated by the Osprey. It's an engineering marvel and a target of abuse. Crusading bloggers and politicians denigrate it; pilots and military brass say it is revolutionizing the concept of air mobility. Regardless, the aircraft is here to stay. The Marine Corps and the Air Force Special Operations Command both use Ospreys, and both will receive more for years to come.
With its ability to shape-shift, the V-22 is a complicated aircraft. Miles of hydraulic and fuel lines run through the wings, and the fuselage must be tough enough to resist deformation despite the movement of the two 971-pound engines. Adding to the challenge, the propellers must fold so the V-22 can operate from ships.
A litany of problems—leaking hydraulics, onboard fires, and in certain conditions, aeronautic instability—plagued the aircraft during its 30-year development. This troubled program took a human toll—30 Marines were killed in three crashes during testing. Engineers have systematically addressed the plane's design flaws (see "A Legacy of Fixes," page 82), but the media piled on to what they saw as an obvious villain; the abuse reached a peak in 2007, when a Time magazine cover story labeled the Osprey "A Flying Shame."
The stigma still lingers. In the past year the New York Times editorial board has denounced the V-22 as "accident-prone" and "unsafe." An April MV-22 crash during a training exercise in Morocco that killed two Marines will likely feed into this reputation.
But since its 2007 deployment the Osprey has proved to be safe while flying in some of the most inhospitable conditions imaginable. There has been only one fatal crash in combat: In 2010 in Afghanistan an Air Force CV-22 touched down short of its landing zone, hit a ditch, and flipped, killing four of the 20 aboard. "Over 10 years, Ospreys have been the Corps' safest combat rotorcraft," says Richard Whittle, author of The Dream Machine: The Untold History of the Notorious V-22 Osprey.
The advantages that the Osprey brings to the battlefield have been displayed during deployment. Not only can V-22s carry larger payloads, but they can also cover more than four times the distance of the Sea Knight. For the Marines and special operators who rely on the Osprey's speed, those are crucial capabilities.
In 2010, a helicopter was wrecked during a raid in Afghanistan, stranding dozens of special operations soldiers who came under attack from small arms and mortar fire. When other helicopters were turned back by dust storms and the high peaks of the Hindu Kush, two CV-22s made the 800-mile rescue, soaring 15,000 feet and over the mountains. The mission returned 32 U.S. personnel in less than 4 hours. A year later, an F-15 pilot who had crashed in Libya was rescued by MV-22s flying from an amphibious assault ship. The Marines returned the pilot to the vessel, 150 miles away, in just 30 minutes.
U.S. Air Force Maj. Brian Luce, a pilot with the 8th Special Operations Squadron, flew the Osprey in Afghanistan and saw firsthand how it turned doubters into converts. "Some of the guys have a little hesitancy," he says. "But then they ride with us and get from point A to point B in record time." Luce says mission planners and combat commanders have also learned to appreciate the Osprey's capabilities. "The range and speed of a CV-22 are phenomenal," he says. "They are realizing this and are adjusting their tactics and procedures."
Those benefits come at a steep price. The V-22's research and development program was supposed to cost just over $39 billion, but independent estimates predict that it will come to $56 billion—43 percent higher. This price tag—about $100 million per plane, including development costs—becomes a bull's-eye each time politicians look for budget cuts. The 2010 bipartisan deficit commission proposed termination of the Osprey in its list of suggested savings.
The White House's proposed 2013 budget trims 24 aircraft (from 122 to 98) over five years, saving $1.75 billion. But those orders could be reinstated during negotiations of the Pentagon's contract with Osprey maker Bell-Boeing. The fact that the Osprey has escaped the budget ax's deepest cuts confirms its improved reputation within the military.
Despite its successes, the V-22 still has something to prove. Critics have found another source of ammunition to aim at the hybrid aircraft that everyone loves to hate.
Late last year a report by the Pentagon's Office of Operational Test and Evaluation noted that from June 2007 to May 2010 the Marine Corps' Osprey mission-capable readiness was only 53 percent.
"It's tough [for maintainers] to keep them flying," says VMM-161's com mander, Lt. Col. Eric Gillard. "But people don't grasp that the V-22 is a leap ahead."
Ready Or Not
The same feats of engineering that make the Osprey such a game changer sap the aircraft's readiness for missions. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a persistent Osprey critic, offered the following backhanded compliment last year as he lamented waste at the Pentagon from the floor of the Senate: "When it is not being repaired, the V-22 performs its missions impressively."
Maintainers point out that, compared with legacy systems, the Osprey is still new. There are decades of knowledge on how to best service an aircraft like the Sea Knight, which has flown since the 1960s. Not so the V-22. "It's a new airframe and not too many people have worked on it," says Master Sgt. Simon Smith, a CV-22 maintainer based at Hurlburt Field near Pensacola, Fla. "We're still in the middle of our learning curve."
He hustles, clipboard in hand, across the flight line at Hurlburt, home of Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC). He's a busy guy—he will leave home for predeployment training for Afghanistan the next day to supervise the maintenance of Ospreys used on recent missions. "No telling how long I'll be gone," he says. "My bag's always packed."
The temporary duty assignment will be his 30th in 19 years. "Every time we change places, the environment adds different stresses on the airframe," he says. "The dust in Afghanistan clumps in different places than the dust in Iraq." These conditions play hell with the Osprey's performance. McCain cites Pentagon records that tally the V-22 engines' service life at just over 200 hours in Afghanistan. The military estimated that figure to be 500 to 600 hours. The shortfall has more than doubled the cost per flying hour to over $10,000, compared with about $4600 per hour for the tandem-rotor CH-46 Sea Knight the Osprey was designed to replace, he said.
But those figures fail to account for the Osprey's speed and size. Whittle points to an internal Marine Corps analysis that crunches the numbers by passenger seats—12 for the Sea Knight at a cost of $3.17 per seat per mile versus $1.76 for the 24-seat Osprey.
Special operations pilots like Luce say the maintainers are getting better with experience and that combat deployments have sped up the learning process. AFSOC does not release readiness rates, but at Hurlburt Field the CV-22 has earned a reputation as an attention hog yet gets decent reviews for readiness. "During my last three-month deployment [to Afghanistan], we never had to cancel a mission for maintenance," Luce says. "The maintenance force is definitely maturing."
He says the Osprey's notoriety is caused in part by its stature. "The CV-22 is high-visibility, sort of the flagship for AFSOC," he says. "It costs a lot of money, so people want to see results."
The struggle between capability and cost doesn't look the same on a spreadsheet as it does from the cockpit or an isolated landing zone. The truth is somewhere in between: The Osprey may be too costly to keep, but it's becoming too useful to abandon.
πόλλ' οἶδ' ἀλώπηξ,ἀλλ' ἐχῖνος ἓν μέγα πόλλ' οἶδ' ἀλώπηξ,ἀλλ' ἐχῖνος ἓν μέγα
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a7883/the-ospreys-real-problem-isnt-safety-its-money-8347657/
No comments:
Post a Comment