US Navy's Dilemma: The New Osprey is Too Good! 

You should try riding a Rollercoaster some day.

@@juri_xiii9977 Did. No comparison.

@@juri_xiii9977 wow, what a terrible comment. Ignorance abounds

You should try joining the navy some day ;)@@juri_xiii9977

That sounds like it was a fun experience to get to fly on a naval aircraft like that. Also getting to see a carrier, but the landing sounds awful😂. I have a fairly strong stomach but I would die if I experienced that. Also which carrier was it? If you don’t mind me asking.

Wrong answer. The F-35C fit inside the C-2A, but require a special frame for easy load and uinloading.

The idea of using a helicopter or an aircraft to fly around another fixed-wing aircraft seems like the most self-defeating purposeless bulshit I've ever heard in the military. And that's saying something. XD

​@@Mygg_Jeagerreread the comment bud

From Vietnam we had helicopters cranes built for special lifts. Well behold DOD got rid of them.

@@melheinrich5438 what?

You missed the tailhook. And all our DIV enjoy the rid with the C-2. 🙂

I’m way too scared to step foot on an Osprey. I’ll take the article 92 if I was ever told to get on one.

​@RizaldoMullings that was one incident. Overall, it's one of the safest aircraft in service

@@SgtShakenBake there are over ten v-22 crashes

@@RizaldoMullings the UH60 black hawk had 16 from 1981-1984 alone, with a total of 390 as of this year.

This right here is the correct answer. Compared to the F414 engines the F135 engine is MASSIVE. In the F404 to replace afterburner parts I have to lay down and crawl to get into the A/B duct. The F135 I could do crouched walk with no issues.

@@daviddewald4540 I never understood how they manage to fit this much fuel and weapons into the airframe. If you compare the engine to the airframe, especially on the B variant, it looks like it's just an engine with wings.

@@lhommeaudacieux That's because it kind of is an engine with wings. how else do you think they get it to takeoff vertically? Just look at the Harrier.

@@thamiordragonheart8682 Only this one also somehow squeezes in an internal weapons bay and about three times as much fuel as the harrier... I suppose there is a reason they call her Fat Amy. Amazing machine though.

You've never been in either have you? The C-2A has a much bigger internal volume. The issue is that the C-2A has had many accidents and age related issues so it's heavily derated and C.G. limited from its original specs. The old girl just can't handle the weight like a V-22 can. Secondly, the v-22 team was allowed to disassemble the F-135 engine to make it fit.

Thanks for your service sir.

Thank you for your service!

Thank you for your comment!

yes, they kick up a LOT OF DUST. that was in the evaluation before they bought them. F35 is facing an even greater problem of burning the regular landing pads.

I think the whole family of V22s are beautiful aircraft and, regardless of their hardiness, are a valuable asset to our military logistics. I live right outside Keesler AFB and see them fly around a few times a year. Recently I got to see a few do some touch and go landings during an airshow and again during a family fun day event at the marina off the north side of the runway.

I was unaware the US had a Navy National Guard. I mean the USCG pretty much has that covered

The Navy has a Navy reserve and yes some of the old planes do get sent there. That said, the Greyhounds are all 1980's vintage and there aren't many of them. They are getting old and tired.

@@L0stEngineer I am aware of the Navy Reserve all 6 branches have a reserve element but only the air force and army have state based national guard units. The USCG has the auxillary which functions the same way.

@@L0stEngineerthat’s not how that works at all.

@@gappprs I would appreciate the enlightenment.

Hopefully they add a computer to help the pilots keep it stable

@@coty.ott0359 The Ospreys have always had computer stability augmentation systems.

@@coty.ott0359wait the osprey doesn’t have that

i'm a little baffled by the title in all honesty. even before the most recent crash they have a well established name and reputatation as "the widowmaker"

@@MaticTheProto I’m sure they do but not the level it needs, for example there’s this prototype jet that Russia made the design for maneuverability is probably the best but it is literally uncontrollable with out a computer doing all the work to keep it from crashing so it was only ever a prototype

Yeah but the Vtol lift capability has resulted in more than a few accidents unless they ironed out those issues.

@@clxwncrxwnthey ironed them in the V280 valor

​@@clxwncrxwnThose issues are pretty much non-existant. Compare the number of Osprey crashes to the crash rates of other aircraft, you'll see which one is more reliable

@@Pierrot9315that’s yet to be verified.

@@clxwncrxwn To what issues do you refer?

may be when the price tag is as high as a f35...

Right? Increasing procurement for an aircraft currently in production is win-win. On the other hand, how long before they expand the roll of the MQ-25 with a dry stores cargo capacity? Just pop a Thule box on top of that bad boy and you can send all those same-day Amazon orders for not much extra!

Except only the marines have ospreys because they are the only ones brave enough (or stupid) to use them

​@@hokamam5516depends on the variant

Except it's not has high as the F-35. Not even close.@@hokamam5516

It is also one of my favorite planes, in concept, but the amount of flaws and down right how dangerous it is, makes it impractical

@@aperson336 and yet it has the best safety record of any rotary craft USMC has.

Why would you love a death trap?

​@@aperson336It has the same safety record as other aircraft if not better. The only issue is it is expensive and doesn't have the benefit of auto rotation yet either do any fixed wing. Cannot wait to see a Valor rock the skies too! Or what the attack variant will look like as the Army currently has plans I guess to just use that for its next attack helicopter. (Or maybe the next generation of light scout helicopter which has not been selected. No tilt powdered aircraft are in competition in that though.)

​@@DaMfProtagonistIt has the best safety record. Stop getting news from headlines and actually read into things before making such a confident statement. If you're going to hate on it. Hate on the cost, and the fact it burns wherever it lands or something. Outside of that it is one amazing machine. Especially for being first of its kind.

3x dead, all USMC onboard, 20x injured I believe

I was in the USMC in the 90s, was terrified of helicopters, they're one of the biggest statistics of Marine Corps deaths. Ospreys are a close second. I'd rather charge into combat than be on one of these birds.

I saw an osprey at the pacific airshow in gold coast about a week before the crash, i hope it wasnt the same pilot because he seemed like a very nice guy

The biggest problem with the osprey is their tendency to kill marines. Still in service which means that they have big money backers lobbying congress.

@@johns9652Look up Osprey crashes and casualties… retry dismal track record…they are quite difficult to fly, the design has not weathered the test of time, and the cost of upkeep on enormous vertical horizontal tilt rotors is almost prohibitive.

4:13 Only this Navy version - The CMV-22b - has the expanded fuel capacity to make it able to take the Greyhound's job

but what's its death rate so far?

@@chasx7062 Far lower than you seem to think. Do some research instead of brainlessly believing every narrative tossed your way.

@@ZackSavage LOL When China & Russia do their military drills, there is no deaths, When Yanks and lapdogs do, many self inflicted friendly fire....is this the second incident with multiple fatalities?

​@@chasx7062Do you really believe China and Russia are going to openly say their death rate in trainings? If USA has deaths, expect the same or more from other countries that invest that much money....

@@chasx7062I can dig up multiple training incidents for you, both in Russia and China. And let’s not act like China would make anything that makes them look bad be publicized in foreign media

Many airframes have this problem. The Blackhawk use to be known as the crashhawk in the late 70’s and early 80’s. People tend to forget. Even when we first went into the desert, there was a huge learning curve for operating aircraft in that environment for long periods of time with sand and dust getting pulled into the airframe and intakes. The osprey is a blast to fly in. Especially during the transition. Best thing that I can compare it to is a roller coaster that shoots you out instead of drop.

I often see them fly pretty low over I-40 when driving through amarillo, it's fun

Yes they did have some design issues. I lost two good friends in the Quantico crash. Did some of the early work on the ring state vortex analysis at the Wilmington Delaware flight test facility. Problem is, for a CH-47 this will cause the nose to dip, increasing airspeed thus reducing the effect. For the Osprey, the wing dips, increasing the issue.

The design issues were never resolved as they are tied to the actual physics of tiltrotor operation. What happened was that the flight software got updated with additional limiters to prevent Ospreys from reaching the flight regimes that caused the earlier crashes. It's safer, yes, but tiltrotors are just riskier in general.

​@@andrewsuryali8540You mean that the manufacturer lobbied congress and showered them with bribes to get them accepted into service despite their flaws. Did I say bribes? Sorry. I meant "campaign contributions."

You used aileron to counter yaw?

The moments due to thrust and rudder aren't purely in the yaw axis.

@@Tom-zs6bb What I wrote, " When it yawed you had to counter-act with rudder and aileron." Yes, because the yaw would ruin your lineup and you needed rudder and aileron to get back on centerline.

@@frederf3227 I am aware, you needed all three inputs to correct. Primarily rudder and aileron to fix lineup, then pitch to control airspeed / AOA. Power was used to control rate of descent.

@@lnomolas3427 So you're referring to a side slip, where one intentionally crosses the controls to remain on and lined up with the centerline (never in fifty years of flying did I ever hear the issue described as "ruin your lineup", hm...)? And since sideslip maneuvers are are flown as a response to crosswinds, not the drastic power excursions that could cause torque and p-factor to be a problem, why would you be doing so? Especially when a carrier would be pointed into the wind, thus eliminating any significant crosswind component? In the event of an engine failure, yes, it may be necessary to hold a little bit of aileron to keep the wings level, but we're not talking about an engine failure, are we? And in that situation, or any other uncommanded yaw caused by asymmetrical thrust, that yaw is corrected with rudder, not aileron.

They have special refueling pods they can use. Will never have the quantity of fuel as a big plane but it is probably easier to match flight plans with almost identical planes

I think they started using superhornets for this task is because the Viking and Prowler got phased out.

@@CannedCoochie There wasn't any issue with the A-4, S-3, A-6, and A-7 carrying buddy pods. If anything, that gave them something to do in fleet air defense scenarios where they could refueling the Tomcats in the wing. They served their time and would've been ready for retirement anyways. The USN just elected to replace everything with the Super Hornet rather than develop a dedicated strike aircraft to save money (and because Dick Cheney hated Grumman and wanted them gone, so he canceled the A-6F and F-14D).

Superhornet and its cousins have been doing everything for a while

Pretty much any naval aircraft can be used as a tanker, the hose and drogue refueling system is housed in a drop tank shell. The old KA-6D tankers were just A-6's with a refuelling system on the centerline hard point and external fuel tanks on all the other hard points.

Compared to the crashes of other aircraft, the Osprey is a golden standard of reliability. Seriously, go look it up, everyone thinks these things are deathtraps but there's a reason that the president uses one as Marine 1.

@@kostakatsoulis2922 The V-22 marine 1 is only for support and POTUS never boards it. That’s why the V22s get the green livery instead of the Blue and White.

Osprey is a victim of media trying to smear expensive equipment. Like how every single minor issue on F-35 becomes headlines while it still is one of, if not the best in terms of reliability per flight hour. Same goes for Osprey it is statistically the safer than Black hawks etc.

@@kostakatsoulis2922 The president does not fly on the MV-22. It's a support aircraft in HMX-1. Not a "white top".

@@zf4hp24 yeah sorry I was thinking of something else

it only uses the rotary wing function for takeoff and landings where runway space is at a minimum and it can perform VTOL operations

Not latest technology. The idea of a tilt rotor aircraft goes back to 1953 and the Bell XV3

@@michaelkendall662 thank you.

@@JosephDawson1986 😯 longtime research, right ? Thank you.

@@emiralamsyah9668 not sure if this sarcasm but even the V22 isn't new technology. It was developed and flown in 1989. It may have updated systems but its still 34 year old technology, at the earliest.

Our down wash is too much for regular SAR missions. It’s also harder to hoist.

@@skorea2131 more downwash than a copter?

@@ScampCamperI would think yeah because it’s bigger, heavier, and has 2 rotors.

​@@ScampCamperif youre not holding onto something on the flight deck it will toss your ass down, seen it numerous time as an LSE. Cant imagine itd help in a sar situation

What would you suggest?

3. Total cargo volume. You can't fit the F35 engine into a C2, and you can hang any bulky equipment off the osprey as you do with your regular heli. 4. Versatility. Being able to do COD to most ships, not just the carriers, means you can avoid having an heli to bring the stuff from the carrier to an escorts ship that has an emergency need. Also, you can do COD on the LHA, that are already basically a carrier. 5. Commonality: you lose common logistics with the E-2, but you share platform with the marines MV-22. Mixed bag here. 6. Flight deck and garage space. An Osprey can take off and land while other operation are being performed, doesn't use a catapult, and it's smaller when completely folded in the hangar. It may be longer to take off and land tho, I'm not exactly sure here.

Problem is the C-130 is more than ten feet taller than the hangar. So any C-130 becomes a permanent guest on the flight deck until departure.

@@Anubis78250 From the outset, the plan had only been to make deliveries to carriers, never to waste space on the flight deck. Landing, delivering supplies, then taking off again in mere minutes, if not seconds.

@@MyLateralThawts That would work except that it would require those C-130's to be stationed everywhere around the world that the carrier groups would be receiving from. Even if you move a small fleet of them around to service the carriers, you're still way over the cost of having an on-board option that stays with the group. Not to mention in those days it would also give away the carriers' destination.

Having to shut down flight operations while hosting a COD killed the Herc in a COD role. I love my Herc, but my girl's just too damn big to fit into the pattern of carrier flight operations.

how would a cat launch be fatal?

seems like it happens all the time

@@KO-sx9uy let osprey for the families

I'll await with you because that would be cool...but I won't hold my breath. I'm guessing it would take an order of magnitude improvement in jet technology to make something that can resist the entire force of gravity (hovering) without eating up its fuel load.

HSVTOL

@@mkvv5687 well... I will wait for a SHIELD Quinjet (Avengers 1 / Agents of Shield)...

Well it one of the safest aircraft in the military people say it bad but every crash is on the news

Too good at killing our own troops

I can't imagine how you could have a giant warship that might be in .... A War, and not have a super well equipped hospital on board.

:x

A lot of it is done by feel, like racing in a car. Totally lost in a simulation. Try thinking ahead a full 5 or 10 seconds instead of right now..... In the flying simulation, anyway. Sacrifice some of your awareness for better flight but you should be able to balance it out.

@@DarthObscurity unless he has a full experience cockpit simulator with the XYZ axis sims...

Army guy here. What are "unreps"?

@@PatrickKQ4HBD Underway Replenishment

Such is life in a rotorcraft, even if optional. But keep repeating fuddlore

^ This. I get why the Osprey is essential in some situations. Nut replacing the Greyhound with a less safe aircraft seems unnecessary.

Compare number of Osprey crashes to number of crashed by other US aircraft. Ospreys are one of the most reliable airframes we have; if they weren't, the president wouldn't use one.

​@@pavarottiaardvark3431its not less reliable, people just think it is because it used to be a desthtrap way back 40 years ago when it was first made and we didn't properly train pilots on it. It was never the aircrafts fault, a congressional board of inquiry determined that, too.

@@kostakatsoulis2922 If you compare incident *rate* per hour flown, the Osprey is less safe than many other military airframes. Its rate of Class A incidents (event that results in fatality, permanent total disability, damage greater than or equal to $2.5 million and/or a destroyed aircraft) is higher than the F15, F16, F35, C130, C17 and A10. (source: USAF Safety Center) Also I don't think that a sitting president has ever flown in a V22

They absolutely would hit the deck if tilted forward while near the ground. VTOL is not optional.

The props are way too big. They have to take off vertically, then switch to horizontal flight. They look pretty wierd. like a 2 prop helo flying on its side.

@@KimonFrousios It is, you can take-off as an STOL

@@KimonFrousios "VTOL is not optional." It is indeed optional, and in fact, necessary at certain weights. They regularly take off like fixed wing aircraft.

@@Tom-zs6bb The propellers are too big for fully horizontal operation while on the ground, so there is always a substantial vertical component to the force generated by the propellers, even if they do a rolling takeoff or landing. But granted, it is not strictly vertical operation.

well... it's better to have the capability to do it... especially if the "China warning" Report is to be true anyway... pacific kind of goes hard even in WW2

Isn’t their a new carrier based drone made for mid air refuelling carrier wings.

The tanker mission used to be filled by S-3A Vikings, but those were retired in 2009. Now E/F models of super hornets do it. The Osprey can tank from anyone who has a hose and drogue.

The S-3 is my favourite Navy aircraft. I don’t know why but it just like it design.

I doubt osprey will be used for most of those task, flight hour being the problem. I see handful of Osprey retain there for special need, such as the transportation of the injured. But things will gradually get replaced by drone.

@@muskaos A-6s used to refuel also.

The C-2s are being replaced because they were all built in the 80s and are reaching the end of their viable service life due to strain on the airframe. Not everything is about being "rugged" and "reliable".

From what I've gathered online its is very demanding on maintenance and therefore availability is lower than what was hoped for. One would expect, that the lessons learned from the V-280 Valor would be put to use in a new marine / naval tilt rotor design.

@@Locomotion-uz4ly will have to look up the Valor as it sounds interesting, thanks for that☺.

I’m genuinely surprised that they don’t yet.

​@@docrofo2573it's all about those Dollar Bills/Pounds. Let's see if increased Russian aggression in the North Sea gets them to commit some more funding to the RN and RAF

@@GunnarKennedy Doubt it unfortunately, at least not while Sunak is in charge.

3 CMV-22B for a carrier.