Military Review

United States Air Force Special Forces SV-22 Osprey

63
Aviation US Air Force Special Operations. In previous post US Air Force Special Operations Aviation We examined the tasks and structure of the special operations forces, and also got acquainted with the US Air Force special operations aircraft created on the basis of the military transport C-130 Hercules. Today we’ll talk about the SV-22В Osprey convertiplanes designed to support the actions of the American special forces.



Convertible CV-22В Osprey


Creation and adoption of the Osprey convertiplane


After the failure in the 1980 year of the operation to free American hostages in Iran, the leadership of the US Defense Ministry expressed interest in an aircraft capable of vertical takeoff and landing and at the same time have a cruising flight speed and range comparable to the Hercules turboprop. An aircraft combining the capabilities of an airplane and a helicopter, built as part of the JVX (Joint-service Vertical take-off / landing Experimental) program jointly by Bell Helicopter and Boeing Helicopters and named V-22 Osprey Osprey - Osprey), first flew 19 March 1989 year.

Osprey became the first serial tiltrotor in the world - an aircraft capable of vertical takeoff and landing (as helicopters do) and a long high-speed horizontal flight, which is typical for ordinary aircraft. Since the tiltrotor is not fully a helicopter or an airplane, this affected both its design and appearance. According to the layout scheme, the Osprey is a high-wing aircraft with a two-fin plumage, equipped with two Rolls-Royce T406 turboprop engines located at the ends of the wing in nacelles, which can rotate by almost 98 degrees. The rotation of the nacelles is carried out using a hydraulic actuator with a screw mechanism. The screws with three trapezoidal blades are interconnected by a synchronizing shaft, which passes inside the wing. This shaft provides the possibility of controlled flight and landing of the aircraft on one engine. To reduce the size of the aircraft while stationary, the wing rotates, the screws fold. In order to reduce the mass of the structure, about 70% (5700 kg) of the apparatus is made of composite materials based on carbon and fiberglass with an epoxy binder, which makes it approximately 25% lighter than metal.

From the very beginning, the implementation of the turboprop aircraft program, which began in the first half of the 1980's, progressed with great difficulty and was repeatedly threatened with closure. This was due to the large share of fundamentally new technical solutions and the high accident rate of prototypes and the first production copies. A major blow to the project was the refusal of the US Army to continue financing. Air Force officials were also critical of Osprey. The further implementation of the program was insisted by the command of the Marine Corps, which needed to replace the CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters, whose life was coming to an end.

United States Air Force Special Forces SV-22 Osprey

The radius of action of the CH-46E helicopter and the MV-22B tiltrotor


The main argument in this case, despite its higher cost, was a significantly increased combat radius and approximately twice as high flight speed in cruising mode, which allowed faster transfer of marines and cargo from the UDC to the landing zone.



After a series of accidents and disasters, most of the problems associated with the technical reliability of Osprey were resolved, and in the 2005, the Pentagon approved a production plan. In 2008, the US military entered into a contract for the supply of 167 V-22 Osprey convertibles for a total of $ 10,4 billion. In 2013, the United States Department of Defense decided to increase the number of Osprey purchases to 458 units. Of these, 360 are for the U.S. ILC, 50 for the Air Force and 48 for the Navy. The cost of one CV-22B, adopted by the Special Forces Aviation Command in the 2014 year, amounted to $ 76 million.


Google Earty satellite imagery: CV-22 at Kirtland airbase


Operation of convertibles CV-22 in the US Air Force MTR in combat squadrons


The first Osprey was handed over to the 58 Special Operations Wing at Kirtland Air Base in New Mexico on 20 on March 2006. This machine was used to train pilots and crew. On November 16 on November 2006, the U.S. Air Force officially accepted the CV-22 at a ceremony held in Hurlburt Field, Florida. 4 October 2007 year, the tiltrotor was first used in a real search and rescue operation. On 16 on March 2009, the command of the Air Force MTR announced that the first six CV-22s of the 8th Special Operations Squadron, based at the Helbert Field Air Base, were ready for combat missions.


Google Earty satellite imagery: CV-22B at the Helbert Field airbase


In June 2009, Osprey took part in a humanitarian operation in Honduras, delivering about 20 tons of food and medicine to remote villages. In 2009, CV-22 was deployed in Iraq in the 8 Squadron, and in Afghanistan in the 2010 Squadron. On July 3 of 2014, CV-22B landed special forces of the Delta Force unit in the vicinity of the militant camp in eastern Syria, where, according to intelligence, the hostages were held. Commandos liquidated the militants on the spot, but found that the hostages had been moved to another place and returned home empty-handed. In general, convertiplanes in Iraq and Afghanistan showed themselves well. According to American data, the coefficient of their technical readiness did not fall below 0,6.



According to its characteristics, the CV-22B fully complied with the requirements of special operations forces. It was especially noted that the Osprey, unlike helicopters, easily overcame mountain ranges, and its range was significantly higher, but it was more demanding on landing sites.

Design features and characteristics of the CV-22B


In terms of mass and dimensions, the CV-22B is close to the MH-2008J Pave Low III special-purpose heavy helicopter taken out of service in the 53, but significantly exceeds it in speed and flight range. The mass of the empty tiltrotor is 15 000 kg. Maximum takeoff weight - 27 440 kg. The mass of the load on the external sling is 6140 kg, the inside of the cargo compartment is 9000 kg. Crew - 4 person. In a cabin measuring 7,37x1,53x1,3m, 24,3m³ in volume, 24 fully equipped paratroopers or 12 wounded on a stretcher with accompanying paramedics can be accommodated. The practical ceiling is 7620 m. The maximum speed in airplane mode is 565 km / h; in helicopter mode, 185 km / h. The wing span at the ends of the propeller blades is 25,78 m. The length for folded blades is 19,23 m. The width for folded blades is 5,64 m. The height for keels is 5,38 m.

The CV-22B used by the Air Force MTR is different from the MV-22B purchased by the US Marine Corps, a more advanced avionics and increased fuel supply. The CV-22B avionics in the basic version included TACAN, VOR / ILS and GPS navigation systems, VHF and HF radio communication equipment, identification systems and night vision equipment. When designing the Osprey, a “glass cockpit” was used, designed for the CH-46X helicopter, which was not put into mass production.



Flight information is displayed on four color displays. In the cockpit there is a fifth display - to display a map of the area. To ensure flights in the following terrain, there is an AN / ARO-174 radar, which can also be used to map the earth's surface. Subsequently, the avionics CV-22B, designed to perform secret missions over the territory of the enemy, underwent significant improvement, the cabin equipment was improved and new software was developed.

Compared to the Osprey, supplied by the United States ILC, special operations force convertiplanes have an increased fuel supply. The fuel tanks MV-22B, designed primarily for the transfer of marines and cargo from universal landing ships, carry 6513 liters of aviation kerosene, and the full refueling tanks CV-22B - 7710 liters. In addition, the Osprey MTR of the US Air Force can carry three outboard fuel tanks with a capacity of 1628 l. For distillation flights in the cargo compartment, it is possible to install additional fuel tanks with a total fuel capacity of 7235 l. The combat radius of action without refueling in the air is about 800 km. Ferry range - 3890 km.



Currently, the CV-22B can receive in-flight aviation fuel from all US Air Force MTR refueling tanks built on the basis of the C-130 turboprop. Also confirmed was the ability to refuel from regular flying tankers of the U.S. Air Force: KC-135, KC-10 and KC-46.



Losses of CV-22B


Although after the adoption of the Osprey into service in special aviation, all heavy MH-53 Pave Low helicopters were decommissioned and the MS-130 aircraft were partially suppressed, the Air Force command had many complaints about the level of technical reliability and flight safety. From the very first test flights, the Osprey gained notoriety. In various flight accidents, 12 V-22 of various modifications were defeated, and 42 people died. Four Osprey lost during testing, and the rest after adoption. However, despite a number of serious incidents, the Air Force MTR irretrievably lost only two convertiplanes. 9 April 2010 years, as a result of the fall of CV-22, 3 American soldiers and one civilian were killed, another 16 Americans were injured. The cause of the crash was the erroneous actions of pilots in conditions of poor visibility, loss of situational awareness and a high rate of decline. On June 13 of 2012 of the year SV-22, which crashed as a result of a pilot error in the vicinity of Eglin air base was not subject to recovery, but all those on board survived.

Improved flight performance and survivability CV-22B


At the same time, the SV-22B used by special forces repeatedly demonstrated good survivability. So, in December 2013, three convertiplanes involved in the evacuation of American citizens in South Sudan received damage as a result of shelling from the ground from a rifle weapons. Subsequently, after returning, 119 holes were counted in their casing, which led to damage to the fuel and hydraulic systems. Despite the damage, the CV-22B managed to continue controlled flight. In order for Osprey to cover the distance of 800 km and land at the Entebbe airport in Uganda, they had to be refueled several times in the air from an MS-130Н aircraft.



Based on the results of use in the combat zone, the High Command of the United States Air Force demanded that the CV-22B be finalized. To increase combat survivability. First of all, it was necessary to eliminate the fuel leak during the shooting of the tanks and to establish ballistic protection for the cabin and the most vulnerable parts of the structure. In 2015, ballistic protection kits consisting of 16 ceramic-metal plates were installed on the first 22 CV-66B MTR of the US Air Force. The mass of armor was 360 kg, with the cost of one set of $ 270 000. In view of the reduction in payload and the reduction in flight range, it was decided to equip only the Osprey directly involved in the hostilities. The fall in flight data that occurred after the installation of the armor was partially compensated by increasing the power of the AE-1107C engines by 17%. This was achieved thanks to the modernization of the turbine and fuel equipment, while updating the software. As a result, the cruising flight speed was increased from 446 to 470 km / h.

Equipping convertiplanes with weapons and anti-aircraft defense systems


For self-defense of the CV-22В, when fired from the ground, various options for installing weapons were considered. Most often, on the Osprey, flying in Afghanistan and Iraq, in the rear mounted 7,62-mm machine guns M240 (American version of the FN MAG), as well as 12,7-mm single-barrel M2 and three-barrel GAU-19.


The onboard shooter fires from the M240 machine gun mounted on a ramp


To increase the impact capabilities, tests were carried out with AGM-114 Hellfire ATGMs, AGM-176 Griffin small-precision high-precision aviation ammunition and GBU-53 / B adjustable bombs -7,62 B / A, served by a shooter, at the disposal of which there was an optoelectronic sighting and search system with a night channel.


GAU-2 B / A machine gun mount under the Osprey fuselage


However, the IDWS weapons system did not prove itself in Afghanistan. First of all, this was due to the fact that the American command began to plan flights very carefully, clean up the territory where the special forces landed, and accompany the tilt planes with attack helicopters and attack aircraft. In addition, by that time, the Taliban, having experienced the impact power of American military aviation, began to avoid an open collision. As a result, the main stake in reducing the vulnerability of CV-22B was placed on the reservation and installation of advanced passive defense systems. The upgraded Osprey, operating in the interests of the Special Operations Forces, is equipped with AN / ALQ-211 broadband digital reception equipment, which in radio-frequency conditions analyzes radio frequency emissions and can neutralize dipole reflectors or use jammers to neutralize threats. Heat traps and the AN / AAQ-24 Nemesis laser counteraction system are designed to counter missiles that are guided by the thermal signature of the engines.

Immediate prospects for the use of convertiplanes in the US Air Force


Although the number of Osprey in the US Air Force is relatively small, they play a measuring role in supporting the combat operations of special operations forces. The commissioning of the CV-22B allowed the dismissal of the MS-130Е Combat Talon I aircraft and the MH-53 Pave Low helicopters. The tiltrotors also noticeably replaced the HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopters in the search and rescue squadrons. It is planned that the faster, faster CV-22C tiltrotor planes will operate in conjunction with the HH-60W helicopters, which are planned to replace the HH-60G. For refueling in the air of MN-60 special forces helicopters and NN-60 search and rescue helicopters in the future, the CV-22С should receive refueling equipment similar to that used on KC-130J aircraft. Improving the flight, operational and combat characteristics of the upgraded CV-22С should primarily occur due to an increase in engine power by 25% and the use of more advanced avionics and armament.

To be continued ...
Author:
63 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Igor Borisov_2
    Igor Borisov_2 30 August 2019 18: 19
    +11
    Thank you for the article. Informative...
  2. Alien From
    Alien From 30 August 2019 18: 33
    +19
    Well, who after that will say that the mattresses do not know how to make weapons ?????
    1. dzvero
      dzvero 30 August 2019 20: 57
      +7
      After 50 years of development, it is somehow inconvenient not to give birth to a serial sample. Congress will not understand ... Actually, tiltroplanes began to be developed almost immediately after the end of WWII. Several programs, constant crashes, it's amazing that they pulled Osprey! I suppose that the merit is entirely on the ILC - they are "a thing in themselves" and they are sometimes allowed a little more than the rest of the Armed Forces.
      And as to whether they can or do not know how - they definitely can. Although there are incidents, but no one is safe, and they have their own national fishing features. smile
      1. Alien From
        Alien From 30 August 2019 23: 08
        +1
        I agree with you entirely!
  3. bubalik
    bubalik 30 August 2019 18: 41
    +1
    At the same time, the SV-22B used by special forces repeatedly demonstrated good survivability.
    ,,, I am not an expert in aviation negative, somewhere I came across information that this technique seems to be less acoustically less noticeable than helicopters recourse ?
  4. Nycomed
    Nycomed 30 August 2019 18: 55
    +1
    Very interesting! Thank!
  5. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 30 August 2019 19: 27
    -15
    The author tried (+)
    I will be extremely brief.
    Avatar did not work. In speed, inferior to both a helicopter and an airplane. limited placement, and, most importantly, the use of weapons. Undoubtedly, the device can be used in the army, but its characteristics and weapons do not cause much admiration.
    Demonstrate how a miracle of technology and the genius of designers - to whom a watermelon, to whom a pig cartilage.
    hi
    1. Megamarcel
      Megamarcel 30 August 2019 20: 27
      +8
      All this is true, but more advanced machines will follow. Their development is already underway. The main thing is that the Osprey operating experience has shown all the pros and cons of this design. Allowed to accumulate practical experience.
    2. Victorio
      Victorio 30 August 2019 20: 30
      +5
      Quote: ROSS 42
      Undoubtedly, the device can be used in the army, but its characteristics and weapons do not cause much admiration.

      ===
      and more good material / basis for the next generation of similar machines
    3. Avior
      Avior 30 August 2019 21: 10
      +9
      I will be even more extremely brief.
      Osprey is superior in performance to the main US carrier-based carrier aircraft, the Grumman C-2 Greyhound.
      With the same dry weight of 15 tons.
      But besides this, he still knows how, if necessary, to take off and land vertically.
      https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_C-2_Greyhound
      https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_V-22_Osprey
      1. dzvero
        dzvero 30 August 2019 23: 16
        +5
        The main merit of Osprey is that for the first time in practical conditions he showed the capabilities of convertiplanes and outlined the areas of their application. A real breakthrough can be expected from the successor (if the constructor is not blundered and the advertisement will not remain an advertisement).
        1. Avior
          Avior 30 August 2019 23: 36
          +3
          And that too.
          But it still has a very real combat use.
          Used at the time of the operation to destroy Ben Incense
      2. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 1 September 2019 07: 21
        0
        Quote: Avior
        Osprey is superior in performance to the main US carrier-based carrier aircraft, the Grumman C-2 Greyhound.

        I like Avatar too:

        but in the house it is better to use real "things".
        I am sick of promising developments, the prospect of which is very vague, and the purpose - the delivery and evacuation of special forces costs under a hundred million "bucks".
        But you are looking for the merits of Osprey - you will break off from the big cake.
        When the car is perfect, I will first give her a high praise. The range hit them ... laughing
        And the growing capabilities of air defense systems do not hit you? No ... The fact that this design simply does not reach the destination is not annoying?
        With rapture and tenderness, they outline the nuances here. A little digression into history:
        https://topwar.ru/23147-konvertoplany-letayuschie-transformery.html
        hi
        1. Avior
          Avior 1 September 2019 07: 42
          +3
          And you compare comparable.
          Challenging Greyhound with C2, for example, then there will be no surprise that its air defense could bring down.
    4. Sergeantpro
      Sergeantpro 31 August 2019 02: 07
      +7
      Yields to which plane and which helicopter? What does it mean limited accommodation, if Osprey on a deck with folded mechanization takes up less space than a helicopter. The armament should not cause admiration, it’s just a high-speed, long-range tram, and the USMC and even more so the MTR have something to ensure safety for it. The problem is only in high cost, but it justifies itself.
  6. mvg
    mvg 30 August 2019 19: 32
    +3
    Cool article. In my opinion so far the only serial envelopes. Only here $ 76 million in 2013 prices, a little expensive for a high-speed helicopter.
    1. ProkletyiPirat
      ProkletyiPirat 30 August 2019 20: 07
      +7
      Quote: mvg
      Only here is $ 76 million in 2013 prices, a little expensive for high-speed helicopter.

      What is cheaper one very expensive tiltrotor or a lot of cheap helicopters?
      In general, convertiplanes have 4 advantages
      1) the maximum minimum fuel consumption per unit flight time
      2) the maximum minimum fuel consumption per unit distance of the path
      3) the ability to save money due to fewer more expensive aircraft with the same area of ​​theater
      4) the ability to quickly transfer to obtain a numerical advantage (you can transfer aircraft from other fronts to where they are needed at the moment)
      1. mvg
        mvg 30 August 2019 20: 34
        +1
        What is cheaper one very expensive tiltrotor or a lot of cheap helicopters?

        I think Sergey will further clarify these issues. Well, offhand .. but why would it be the minimum fuel consumption? Look how much fuel he takes on board .. 7K + t. TTX is not bad, but Kamovtsi promise a helicopter at a speed of 600 km / h. That Chinook doesn’t know what Osprey does, for $ 28 million. Well flies slower, the possibility of refueling is limited. The United States has airfields around the world, it will be accepted everywhere.
        PS: In my opinion, it was bought only by the Japanese and then a couple of dozen. Only states with an unlimited budget can afford it. Transport worker at the price of a fighter.
        And yes, 24 foot soldiers will really turn the battle around.
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 30 August 2019 22: 30
          +5
          Quote: mvg
          Well, offhand .. but why would it be the minimum fuel consumption? Look how much fuel he takes on board .. 7K + t.

          It’s not a matter of who takes the most fuel, but how and what it is spent on, a part of the fuel is spent on BRAKING in a helicopter, it’s like on a car to turn the rear wheels forward and the front ones back.
          Quote: mvg
          Kamovtsi promise a helicopter at a speed of 600 km / h

          Ogh, they have been promising him for 30-50 years, and they will promise the same ...
          Quote: mvg
          That Chinook doesn’t know what Osprey can do for $ 28 million

          To get the same helicopter combat flight time, you need at least 4 times more (because the speed is at least 2 times less), just take a map and draw circles to bring the area and time to a common denominator, and then multiply the numerator by the cost of the aircraft. I once long ago calculated it turned out that helicopter fleets were ten times more expensive. You will not believe me, of course, so consider ...
          Quote: mvg
          PS: In my opinion, it was bought only by the Japanese and then a couple of dozen. Only states with an unlimited budget can afford it.

          It's not about the cost of osprey, but about its quality as a PLA, here, as they say, "the first pancake is lumpy" only the United States continues to produce this pancake. All the problems are connected with engines and transmissions, there is a conceptual error leading to a multiple rise in cost and at the same time reducing reliability. In short, you need to use standard helicopter engines, and not create specialized ones. On Valor they again put on a new specialized engine, it is a little better, but I doubt it is much ...
        2. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 31 August 2019 13: 59
          0
          "but Kamovtsy promise a helicopter with a speed of 600 km / h." ////
          ----
          Not a helicopter, but some kind of aircraft combined
          with a helicopter. Some kind of pushing screw will add or jet
          engine.
      2. bk0010
        bk0010 31 August 2019 20: 23
        0
        If everything is so "extremely minimal", why does an hour of flight cost as an hour of flight of a strategic bomber?
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 31 August 2019 22: 17
          +1
          Firstly, for example, in a modern tank, an hour’s drive is orders of magnitude more expensive than the same hour in old tanks of the Second World War, but for some reason everyone uses new tanks, not old ones. It's on the topic of cost comparison ...
          Secondly) as I said above, the osprey has a conceptual fundamental flaw in the design of the engine and transmission. Due to this drawback, it often breaks down and, in addition, maintenance / repair / replacement are more expensive. In short, it tears off the cover of earth / water, raises it above itself and then sucks it into the engine, therefore it is necessary to change the engines more often, because the flight hour is more expensive. It's like a normal car to put an air intake in the bottom near the wheels, and then wonder why this engine dies every thousand kilometers ...
      3. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 1 September 2019 07: 40
        +1
        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        4) the ability to quickly transfer to obtain a numerical advantage (you can transfer aircraft from other fronts to where they are needed at the moment)

        Front-line workers !!! And with a front-mounted air defense system, the range of destruction will allow this aircraft with the maximum minimum fuel consumption per unit of flight time, the maximum minimum fuel consumption per unit of track distance and the possibility of saving money due to fewer more expensive aircraft with the same theater area to fulfill the task -
        QUICKLY TRANSFER AND EVACUATE?
        Just a panacea for all ills. And the Americans just got the world out with the construction of convertiplanes ... lol And China, with its economic power abandoned the development of the 6th generation and sat on ...
        I no longer take into account the Russian "Baikal", the replacement of which is the tiltrotor "Seliger" ...
        Even at the time of Reagan, we were struck by the low cost and effectiveness of SDI.
        Hey! Where are you? In addition to "soy" substitutes and additives, I see nothing.
        Planet of mediocrity. Some Americans are ahead of the rest. laughing By the way, a soccer ball made of cast iron is much stronger ... And much cheaper ... lol
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 1 September 2019 15: 26
          0
          Quote: ROSS 42
          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          4) the ability to quickly transfer to obtain a numerical advantage (you can transfer aircraft from other fronts to where they are needed at the moment)

          ... And with the front-line air defense system, the range of destruction will allow this aircraft ...

          Trolling +1, Now tell others why the Russian air defense to shoot down the Russian convertiplane over Russian territory when transferring Russian convertiplanes between the Crimea and the Kuril Islands? it was a rhetorical question ...
  7. itarnmag
    itarnmag 30 August 2019 21: 23
    0
    Nobody answered one question to me like that. With such a large diameter of the screws, it will not be able to land without crash if the screws do not move to the vertical position during landing
    1. dzvero
      dzvero 30 August 2019 23: 22
      +2
      We must look at the RLE. If there is such a section and the corresponding actions of the pilots are spelled out in it, then everything is OK; if not, then you are right ...
    2. Avior
      Avior 30 August 2019 23: 42
      +3
      Vertical optional, fairly oblique
    3. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 31 August 2019 13: 36
      +2
      Quote: itarnmag
      With such a large diameter of the screws, it will not be able to land without crash if the screws do not move to the vertical position during landing

      Do you mean in such a position in which the earth’s firmament is not touched? Landing with damage to the propeller blades, nowhere to go. Although the blades are folding, this is done only with the motors stopped. And there is no mechanism for ejecting the blades either.
      It is better to sit and mash the blades than to break.
    4. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 1 September 2019 07: 43
      0
      Quote: itarnmag
      So no one answered one question.

      Better to see once:
  8. E.S.
    E.S. 31 August 2019 02: 36
    -2
    Quote: Alien From
    Well, who after that will say that the mattresses do not know how to make weapons ?????

    Well, I'll say, "why?". You can drive barmalkeys on turntables, here the speed of delivery is the tenth thing, the razntsy fly an hour or half an hour - no, and even land with barefoot men in dresses who can eat from the ground a launcher concocted in the garage, with which the R-27 of the times of the Glory of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is pulled out equally unpleasant that on Osprey, that on CH-53. And on the latter, even though there is a ghostly chance for autorotation, we can at least not all die to death.
    Therefore, it is not clear with whom they will fight and how: if there is air superiority and there are no air defense systems and anti-ship missiles, then at least land with an airship, and if there is no air superiority and there is unsuppressed air defense, then the Ospreyks will knock down and, in addition, they will also shy away from the trough RCC, pure from dullness and misunderstanding of the foundations of democracy
  9. E.S.
    E.S. 31 August 2019 02: 46
    +1
    Quote: ProkletyiPirat
    Quote: mvg
    Only here is $ 76 million in 2013 prices, a little expensive for high-speed helicopter.

    What is cheaper one very expensive tiltrotor or a lot of cheap helicopters?
    In general, convertiplanes have 4 advantages
    1) the maximum minimum fuel consumption per unit flight time
    2) the maximum minimum fuel consumption per unit distance of the path
    3) the ability to save money due to fewer more expensive aircraft with the same area of ​​theater
    4) the ability to quickly transfer to obtain a numerical advantage (you can transfer aircraft from other fronts to where they are needed at the moment)

    This is what happens when marketing theorists and MBA logisticians start playing war games.
    A smaller number of aircraft means greater sensitivity to losses.
    To disrupt the operation it is necessary to fill up 10 Iroquois or three Chinook or one Osprey
  10. lopvlad
    lopvlad 31 August 2019 04: 31
    -6
    Another expensive toy for democratizing regimes in which the army is in the form of Bedouins with sticks, the complete absence of not only air defense but also MANPADS. It is only unnecessary to rub in that its stealth and vitality are higher than that of a conventional helicopter.
    This is such a legend about the elusive Joe who is elusive not because he cannot be caught, but because no one has chased him yet.

    After the failure in 1980 of the operation to free American hostages in Iran, the US Defense Ministry expressed interest in an aircraft capable of vertical takeoff and landing and at the same time have a cruising flight speed and range comparable to the Hercules turboprop.


    and that after the SV-22B Osprey came into service, did the Americans have a chance to carry out any operation in Iran without failing? No did not appear.

    The concept of convertiplanes has a future, but not only as a combat vehicle, but as a vehicle for delivering goods and passengers in non-military operations to geographically difficult areas where it is not possible to build a runway for a conventional aircraft. But this has not yet created a high-speed helicopter.
  11. Nikolay R-PM
    Nikolay R-PM 31 August 2019 06: 44
    +2
    Sergey, a good article !!!
    Bell almost completely ousted the army from the army aviation, and they switched to providing equipment for the military police. Please note that the lion's share of v-22 is kmp, moreover, to replace not only drink low 3, but also ch-46 decommissioned. The navy and the air force cost a more modest amount: the navy is just to improve transport capabilities between ships in order (as avior quite rightly remarked), the air force is for sss.
    It should be noted that despite the shortcomings of the v-22 they will be operated the longest in kmp, kmp are famous for their forced conservatism in helicopter technology. And such an amount is not easy to immediately put in / out of service.
    V-280 despite the more successful layout of the power plant is not able to replace v-22, because v-22 outperforms first payload and cargo compartment size
  12. garri-lin
    garri-lin 31 August 2019 09: 26
    0
    It was always unclear why rotary engines should be made entirely. And why should the engines be placed at the ends of the wing. Moreover, there is a shaft through the wing that connects the engines.
    1. NN52
      NN52 31 August 2019 10: 21
      +1
      On the V -280 Valor, they already took a different path, rigidly fixing the engines and turning only the knot into the screws. But he only seems to be in trials yet.
      I'm interested in something else. As they are with such a screw diameter of almost 12 m, they also manage to refuel in the air .. Although the refueling rod is carried forward forward, I think this is still the task ... Any downward-upward flow and that’s all ... Not a hose, not a screw ....
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 31 August 2019 10: 48
        0
        The layout of the new tiltrotor is even more absurd. There is a complicated gearbox, but there are no pluses from it. Both the wing and the engine shield the downward flow from the screws. It’s like sailing against the wind on a yacht using sails using an engine. And honestly I do not know about refueling. The blade is massive. Much more slender blades hold a breakdown of a 30mm shell. I think the strength of the Osprey blade is enough to cut the hose and keep it working.
        1. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 31 August 2019 13: 24
          +2
          Quote: garri-lin
          The scheme of the new tiltrotor is even more absurd

          on the contrary, it is much simpler. On V-280, only screw shafts are made gold-plated. On the Osprey, the whole engine installation is rotary - with all the difficulties, including fuel supply
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 31 August 2019 13: 41
            +1
            Imagine the complexity of a gearbox that will transmit such revolutions with a bend of 90+ degrees? I personally imagine with difficulty.
            1. Grigory_45
              Grigory_45 31 August 2019 13: 49
              +4
              Quote: garri-lin
              Imagine the complexity of a gearbox that will transmit such revolutions with a bend of 90+ degrees? I personally imagine with difficulty.

              not a gear, but a shaft. By the type of gimbal. Turnovers there are small, power - yes. The thing, of course, is not easy, but easier than turning the entire motor. And in terms of reliability better. Yankees took into account the experience of creating and operating Osprey
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 31 August 2019 14: 03
                +2
                There is a bend of 90+ degrees. How are you going to bend the shaft 90 degrees? Crosses?
                1. Grigory_45
                  Grigory_45 31 August 2019 14: 12
                  +1
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  There is a bend of 90+ degrees. How are you going to bend the shaft 90 degrees?

                  as an option - multi-shaft propeller, lifting the last knee. How the Americans really did, I don’t know. Maybe they invented something original.
                  Turning the gearbox itself is even more challenging.
                  1. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 31 August 2019 14: 24
                    +4
                    Multi-shaft gimbal. How hard will it be and how reliable? What will cardan joints be? Crosses? Shrus's analogues? It is not at all difficult to rotate the bevel gear relative to the housing. The axis of rotation coincides with the axis of the input shaft. Everything is very simple. And the engine does not shield the air flow from the screw.
      2. Grigory_45
        Grigory_45 31 August 2019 13: 25
        +2
        Quote: NN52
        As they are with such a screw diameter of almost 12 m, they also manage to refuel in the air

        achieved by numerous training (refueling in the air for Americans - a routine operation, in general) and the control system of the device itself
        1. NN52
          NN52 31 August 2019 15: 54
          -3
          Gregory
          Osprey routine operation ..... you burn ....
          What did you graduate from? Which university? if it `s not a secret?
          1. Grigory_45
            Grigory_45 31 August 2019 16: 01
            0
            Quote: NN52
            Osprey routine

            Quote: Gregory_45
            American Air Refueling - Routine Operation

            said about refueling in general. However, the Osprey crews also have considerable experience
            1. NN52
              NN52 31 August 2019 16: 05
              -2
              And yet .. Gregory, that finished, what would argue?
              I understand the technical university? if so argue about routine operations argue?
              1. Grigory_45
                Grigory_45 31 August 2019 16: 20
                +5
                Quote: NN52
                what did you finish to talk like that?

                oh ... it's time to face it with swords? I will disappoint you, this is without me. I don’t play such games, and the attitude towards a person immediately changes as soon as he starts talking about regalia and titles. Apparently, you are one of those who meet on clothes and escorts them.

                You will deny that the Americans probably have the richest experience of all refueling in the air? And that not one of their modern operations can do without the participation of air tankers?
                And not even an operation, but any exercises and planned flights.
                1. NN52
                  NN52 31 August 2019 16: 45
                  -4
                  Gregory, what are you talking about ???? What kind of swords, buddy? If you speak with firm confidence about the Amer guys about refueling, especially at Osprey ... Have you mixed anything up? Reread my comment above. What should I call you ??? Unprofessional or something else?
                  Once again for you, it was about convertiplanes ...
                  And you did not answer that you were finishing.
                  And of course I don’t care, but why?
    2. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 31 August 2019 13: 30
      +2
      Quote: garri-lin
      And why should the engines be placed at the ends of the wing

      you taught a compromise? What is leverage, you know? The longer the shaft, on which the force is applied to the loose end (in this case, from the screw), the stronger the bending moment - a stronger (and heavy shaft) is required, which, moreover, still needs to be balanced to avoid strong vibrations. The closer the motor to the propeller, the better.
      The synchronizing shaft does not experience such loads, it does not transmit all the power (in normal mode, when both motors are running, it "walks" along it), moreover, it has supports at both ends.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 31 August 2019 13: 47
        +1
        Why loose end? Osprey’s wing is stiff. It’s hard to fix the shaft in it and center the problems. A small rotary gearbox at the end of the wing plus 2 bevel gears will be easier to love than the entire rotary engine mechanism. Plus, the speed of rotation of the shaft can be many times lower than the speed of rotation of the screws. And the vibration is lower, too. But this is a compromise.
        1. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 31 August 2019 13: 54
          +1
          Quote: garri-lin
          Why loose end?

          because on it is a screw in space, and on which forces act. Cantilever shaft end.
          Quote: garri-lin
          Small slewing gear

          corner, wanted to say?
          Quote: garri-lin
          plus 2 bevel gears you love will be easier than the whole rotary engine.

          Of course, easier. But no simpler than turning a small section of the shaft from the gearbox to the screw. What they did on the V-280. I repeat:
          Quote: Gregory_45
          The closer the motor to the propeller, the better.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 31 August 2019 14: 11
            +1
            The points. The wing is hard. Very tough. At the end of the wing gear. Shaft between engine and gearbox. Everything is very tough. The second one. A small rotary (rotatable) gearbox in the sense that the angular gearbox (two bevel gears) will be rotated to change the screw position relative to the housing. The third is to bend the shaft along the axis of rotation is difficult. Huge strength requirements. Any backlash will multiply vibrations
            1. Grigory_45
              Grigory_45 31 August 2019 14: 25
              +1
              Quote: garri-lin
              The wing is hard. Very tough

              the wing cannot be absolutely rigid. Otherwise, it will fall off (come off).
              Quote: garri-lin
              in the sense that the bevel gear (two bevel gears) will be rotated to change the screw position relative to the housing

              this is understandable)
              Quote: garri-lin
              Any backlash will multiply vibrations

              in this case, one cannot do without an articulated gear, you just put it at the input to the gearbox. In principle, he has the right to life.
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 31 August 2019 14: 40
                +1
                Due to the design features, the wing of the tiltrotor is very rigid with heavy engines at the ends of the planes. 2. The hinge is not needed. The axis of rotation of the gearbox coincides with the axis of the input shaft. They just need a damper to damp vibrations.
        2. Grigory_45
          Grigory_45 31 August 2019 14: 01
          0
          What do you dislike about the motors on the wing consoles? After all, to conduct fuel and electrical communications is much easier than dragging a long shaft through the entire airplane and putting the gearbox.
          Although, your decision also has the right to life. He also has its advantages. Although I, if I (God forbid) were entrusted with designing a tiltrotor, I would not have dared to take such a risk.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 31 August 2019 14: 58
            0
            Val and so it is. And the skater of all it is not solid, but has a connection in the fuselage. But the whole engine rotation mechanism is a massive thing. And turning the wasps of rotation 90 degrees is not an easy thing.
  13. zombee
    zombee 31 August 2019 09: 56
    0
    Quote: garri-lin
    It was always unclear why rotary engines should be made entirely. And why should the engines be placed at the ends of the wing. Moreover, there is a shaft through the wing that connects the engines.

    magic word - vibration and resonance
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 31 August 2019 10: 49
      +1
      You want to say that one engine in the center of mass will give more vibration? And do not talk about the shafts, they are already there.
  14. zombee
    zombee 31 August 2019 11: 23
    +1
    Quote: garri-lin
    they are there already.

    for synchronization, but not for power transmission
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 31 August 2019 12: 08
      +2
      And how do you imagine synchronization without power transfer? How does this shaft differ from the shaft that goes to the "rear" propeller in conventional helicopters?
    2. Grigory_45
      Grigory_45 31 August 2019 13: 20
      0
      Quote: zombee
      for synchronization, but not for power transmission

      and to transfer power to the second screw, in case of failure of one of the motors. Yes, and the synchronization itself mechanically involves the transfer of energy (power)
  15. Proctologist
    Proctologist 31 August 2019 15: 15
    +3
    Nice article, thanks! And I saw this "bird" in flight - it looks unusual ...
  16. chingachguc
    chingachguc 8 September 2019 11: 57
    +1
    I wonder what patriots would say here if we had this thing, but the Americans didn’t?