V-22 Osprey, who are you for, old man?

47
V-22 Osprey, who are you for, old man?

The crash of a U.S. Air Force CV-22B Osprey last month was the latest in a string of fatal accidents that prompted the Air Force and Marine Corps to ground their tiltrotor aircraft.

Justified, because plane crashes between March 2022 and November 2023 killed 20 US military personnel. The Osprey's crash rate is higher than its U.S. Army equivalent, the UH-60 Black Hawk, but several of the Osprey's advantages make it the only aircraft suitable for certain missions.



It so happens that the aircraft, which had seemingly lost its reputation as a deadly aircraft, is again the subject of controversy after another crash in late November, the fourth fatal incident in less than two years.


The V-22 Osprey, in service with the Marine Corps and Air Force Special Operations Command, is one of the most capable VTOL aircraft in the world. But this capability comes at a cost: The aircraft has more than three times the crash rate of its less powerful counterpart, the Army's UH-60 "Blackhawk."

Following the latest accident on Nov. 29 off the coast of Kagoshima in southern Japan, which killed all eight crew members, the Air Force and Navy have suspended the use of their V-22s, Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) said in a Dec. 6 statement.

December 7 Naval Command aviation Systems issued its own statement saying it would suspend all variants of the V-22 Osprey "out of an abundance of caution."

Flew off.


Eight of the dead crew members were U.S. Air Force pilots assigned to the 353rd Special Operations Wing based at Yokota Air Base. The Air Force described the flight as a "routine training mission." According to AFSOC, the preliminary investigation indicates that "a potential material failure caused the accident, but the underlying cause of the failure is currently unknown."

Let's just say that everything is very, very contradictory.

But we must also agree that the V-22 “Osprey” itself is a rather controversial device, starting from the design and ending with the implementation of all ideas. More created in spite of than by the will of time. And as for the latter, almost two decades on the road from the start of work to adoption - that’s a lot.

In general, yes, one among strangers, a stranger among one’s own. A little stories? It will be useful.


The V-22 Osprey was introduced in 1989 as the world's first operational tiltrotor aircraft. It spent 18 years in development, debugging and testing, and finally entered service with the US Marine Corps in 2007. The MV-22 has replaced the veteran Vietnam-era CH-46 "Sea Knight" as the Marine Corps' medium transport aircraft, and there are currently about 298 aircraft in service out of a planned fleet of 360 vehicles. The Air Force operates 52 CV-22B Ospreys as a long-range transport for special operations, while the US Navy planned to acquire 48 CMV-22Bs as an airborne carrier aircraft carrying cargo between land and sea-based services. aircraft carriers.


In principle, the CV-22B “Osprey” was fully consistent with the tasks assigned to it. In April 2011, six tiltrotor aircraft from the 226th Squadron, 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, flew from the British military base Camp Bastion in Afghanistan to the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge at Souda Bay on the island of Crete. The flight distance was 4500 km, taking into account the flight over unfriendly territories. During the flight, two refuelings were made from KC-130J Super Hercules refueling aircraft. So long distances were not such a problem for tiltrotors.

The Osprey's development period was marked by several high-profile accidents, three of which occurred between 1992 and 2000, and a total of 30 people were killed in these accidents. This led to the aircraft being nicknamed the "Widowmaker" and the CV-22B "Osprey" was heavily criticized for both safety and cost reasons.

The tiltrotor seemed to have been finalized, and at the end it had a fairly good level of safety for the 2010s, and until 2017 there were only seven major incidents in which only 8 people died. But after 2017 it exploded. There has been a surge in fatal accidents.


During 2017 alone, there were three landing accidents (Syria, Yemen, Australia), resulting in the death of 4 people.

Four Marines died in Norway in March 2022 in a crash caused by pilot error.

Five crew members died in June 2022 in Southern California due to a malfunction of the aircraft's hydraulic system.

Three died in a crash in Australia in August 2023 in a crash that is still under investigation.

According to the Marine Corps in July 2022, the Osprey Class A accident rate was 3,61 per 100 flight hours. This was before the last two accidents in Australia and Japan.

The Pentagon records Class A accidents as "direct casualties totaling $2 or more, an accident resulting in death or permanent total disability, or the destruction of a Department of Defense aircraft." That is, you have to try hard to enter this accident class.

By comparison, the 2021 UH-60 Black Hawk Class A accident rate in U.S. Army service was 0,87. However, this comparison is somewhat unfair, since the Osprey costs $84 million and the Black Hawk costs $19 million.

In fact, more expensive aircraft tend to have more damage, and an accident that is a Class A for an Osprey could easily be a Class B (less than $2,5 million, including permanent disability or three injuries) ) or even a Class C (less than $600 in damage) for the Black Hawk. However, the fact that the Class A accident rate is almost four times higher than that of the UH-000 is certainly suggestive.


Yes, of course, a tiltrotor has significant advantages over both an airplane and a helicopter. This cannot be taken away from the CV-22B Osprey, and no one is going to.

The helicopter was the dominant type of VTOL aircraft from the post-World War II era until the US Marine Corps agreed to purchase the MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor in 1989. The tiltrotor design, which includes two turboshaft engines driving two large rotors, allows the plane to take off vertically like a helicopter and then turn the rotors 90 degrees to fly like a regular airplane. The Osprey was the first operational aircraft that could fly in both modes in a single flight.

The tiltrotor capabilities were intended to give the Osprey the best of both worlds, airplane and helicopter. The aircraft could take off and land from landing ships or improvised landing pads on land, fly normally at a cruising speed of 500 km/h, significantly faster than any helicopter, and fly farther than any helicopter in the world.


It is clear that in this regard, the CV-22B Osprey is head and shoulders above any helicopter in missions where speed, stealth and range are needed, and an aircraft in landings in unsuitable places. In general, this device is a valuable find for various MTRs, which has been proven in practice more than once.

So what to do and what to do with this very controversial machine?


To begin with, of course, it is worth examining all the accidents that have occurred recently. Naturally, some of the accidents will one way or another be on the conscience of the pilots of this not-so-easy-to-control machine, and some will be on the conscience of the technical part.

If the issue is the training of flight and technical personnel, this, of course, can be solved, but not so quickly. It's no secret that today the technical services of the army and fleet The United States is going through difficult times in terms of personnel. In general, serving is not as prestigious as it used to be; in principle, the “successes” in the personnel policy of the US Armed Forces after Afghanistan can be equated to post-Vietnam times. That is, if smart people go into the service, then yes, in the “bespectacled” services like DARPA, where they can make a generally good career “without getting dirty.”

The level of technical personnel could indeed decline over time and this was reflected in the operation of such complex machines as the CV-22B Osprey. But this is a matter of checks, which take time.

The November Osprey accident, which once again resulted in fatalities, is just the latest in a string of four accidents in less than two years. While one crash was declared pilot error, at least one other had a mechanical cause. So in terms of the future fate of Osprey, there may be different developments. Of course, this device could provide more capabilities to US special operations forces, but it could also be more dangerous than another country's anti-aircraft missile systems.

It is worth noting that in operations in Syria since 2014, the United States has lost one CV-22B Osprey, while exactly ten times as many vehicles were lost in normal operation and in non-combat conditions.


But since 2007, the developers have done a huge amount of work to modernize the machine and eliminate defects found, which, the Americans themselves admit, were more than enough. But not because of the crooked designers. The car was truly so revolutionary that the designers had to face problems that they did not even suspect.

For example, that an aircraft with the capabilities of a helicopter will exhibit such a helicopter disease as the “vortex ring” effect. It was observed in vehicles that were landing at a low horizontal speed, but with a significant vertical speed. During such a landing, the main rotor blades fell into the vortex flow created earlier, causing the lifting force to drop and the machine to “sag,” which often ended with the machine falling altogether.

For the Osprey, which can't land like an airplane, this was quite a problem. Moreover, if a car like the Osprey gets one engine into the vortex ring, the car will completely capsize.

Yes, the Osprey is a very controversial car, which even today causes a huge amount of controversy and criticism. However, one cannot deny the fact that the developers managed to bring to life the concept that was laid down at the start of the program. They made an aircraft that can take off vertically and cover significant distances at the speed of a regular airplane. This is on one side of the scale.


On the other hand, there are almost three decades of work by design bureaus of several companies, thousands of man-hours (probably millions), billions of dollars spent and, as a result, to date 63 dead crew members and troops.

This is a bit much. And they think so even where they will soon decide the difficult fate of this difficult apparatus.
47 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    15 December 2023 04: 39
    The very idea of ​​building such a device is deadly because of the complexity and reliability of the mechanisms and controls.
    1. +4
      15 December 2023 04: 58
      a very valuable and necessary car for...blockbusters.
      1. +4
        15 December 2023 22: 10
        They were actively used by the US SOF in Syria and Yemen. In particular, in 2017 there was an operation when they flew from a base in Egypt to the center of Yemen, dropped off a group, picked them up after the operation and flew back (1 vehicle was damaged and destroyed by an air strike later). All this without refueling. What helicopter can do that?
        The car is more than interesting, but quite expensive and complex.
    2. 0
      15 December 2023 10: 43
      Quote from pavel.tipingmail.com
      The very idea of ​​building such a device is deadly because of the complexity and reliability of the mechanisms and controls.

      For this reason, at one time, the KA-22 program was canceled. Although his records have not yet been broken! They tried to break the record on Osprey, and as a result, 4 pilots died...
    3. +5
      15 December 2023 20: 20
      Just like a trebuchet, a steam engine, an airplane, a spaceship, a nuclear power plant in its time.
    4. 0
      9 March 2024 10: 30
      If we reasoned like this, not a single new type of technology would appear. In fact, for a fundamentally new type of machine, the losses are not only not large, but insignificant. Many of the same classic helicopters and airplanes, over the years of operation, had a lower reliability class. But, vast experience has been gained, all childhood diseases are known, and you can move on to the second generation, which will definitely be with higher characteristics and more reliable. But we don’t have any analogue of the first generation yet.
  2. +2
    15 December 2023 05: 27
    The aircraft is, of course, wonderful, but technically very complex. One of the most unreliable components, as I understand it, is the shaft that synchronizes the speed of both engines. The length of the shaft is 15 meters, the wing-beam is not straight, but has bends in the places where it is docked to the fuselage (I apologize to the experts for possibly amateurish reasoning), which means the shaft is not solid, but has several cardans. It seems that Boeing specialists were never able to solve the problem of the reliability of these mechanisms.
    1. +3
      15 December 2023 21: 33
      Quote: South Ukrainian
      One of the most unreliable components, as I understand it, is the shaft that synchronizes the speed of both engines.

      CH-47 Chinook (Boeing) Produced since the early 60s, it was in service with more than 20 countries. The shaft will probably be longer; in addition, it is constantly loaded (the engines are located at the tail, the force from them is transmitted to the propeller located in the front part of the tiltrotor). A workhorse and it wasn't reviled like an Osprey.
      1. 0
        16 December 2023 10: 04
        Quote: Bad_gr
        The shaft will probably be longer, in addition, it is constantly loaded

        I agree with you about the length of the shaft. The Chinook has about 25 meters, but the shaft is straight and solid, from gearbox to gearbox. I had something else in mind, namely the presence of cardans in the V-22, and in any case they are present.
    2. 0
      16 December 2023 23: 29
      One of the most unreliable components, as I understand it, is the shaft that synchronizes the speed of both engines.
      This shaft is also designed to transfer power from the internal combustion engine of another propeller to rotate the propeller in the event of failure of the internal combustion engine of this propeller. Since in the tiltrotor hovering mode, a drop in the speed of one of the propellers (or a strong mismatch in the frequency of their rotation with the same pitch of the propellers) will immediately lead to a tiltrotor overturn and an accident. It makes sense to consider hybrid tiltrotors of a parallel or series design, with an electric propeller drive instead of a power transmission shaft.
  3. -2
    15 December 2023 05: 30
    The car is too dangerous for injuries... the slightest mistake or abnormal situation during landing is all... screws for everyone inside... the screws, like in a meat grinder, chop the contents in the fuselage into minced meat.
  4. -6
    15 December 2023 05: 37
    Usually our crashes always involve pilots being killed, and these Satanists always manage to survive somehow, but not this time.
  5. +16
    15 December 2023 05: 55
    The V-22 Osprey, in service with the Marine Corps and Air Force Special Operations Command, is one of the most capable aircraft

    R. Skomorokhov has already stopped reading his own articles, relying on the adequacy of the computer translation. Because the phrase “capable aircraft” is an oxymoron.
    1. -2
      15 December 2023 10: 51
      Quote: Amateur
      Because the phrase “capable aircraft” is an oxymoron.

      belay How is that? Explain, very interesting! Here: hot snow, cold fire, a living corpse, dry wine, a stupid genius, the end of eternity, beauty is a terrible force... these are oxymorons. Where does a “capable aircraft” fit in?
      1. +5
        15 December 2023 13: 14
        Where does a “capable aircraft” fit in?

        An airplane capable of... that's in Russian. By the way, the Osprey is not a plane at all. And not a helicopter. This type of aircraft is called a tiltrotor.
    2. +2
      16 December 2023 20: 09
      the phrase "capable aircraft" is an oxymoron


      This is not an oxymoron, it is an Anglicism that can be translated back, Googled and still found - the article is almost completely, in entire paragraphs, taken from the material "The US Military's Most Capable Tiltrotor Is a Death Trap", published on December 7, 2023 in the magazine Popular Mechanics (there Even in the title this phrase is, but it is also in the text of the correspondingly translated paragraph).

      And I once saw this car in person in the air in California, where they are based at the Air Force Base in San Diego.
  6. 0
    15 December 2023 06: 19
    I am by no means an expert in aviation, but I have an idea that instead of liquid fuel engines and a synchronizing shaft, you can install one powerful permanent magnet stepper motor per propeller and one generator.
    And then the car will have a second life and reliability will increase. In theory, but experiments are needed.
    1. 0
      15 December 2023 06: 31
      the efficiency will be very low, but I could be wrong, after all, there will be 2 energy conversion circuits. Another drawback of a tiltrotor is that the helicopter can land in autorotation if something happens to the engine, but this one goes straight into a brick “steep dive” (with) lasting 1 episode laughing This is actually why the accident rate is high coupled with the high price
      1. +2
        15 December 2023 07: 40
        You need to look at the flying time for one accident. Since 2014, there has been an average of one accident per year, which is not so much for active operation (but also a lot).
        Su-34, for example, has a similar number of emergency situations during the same time.
        But the Su-24 was much more dangerous in its time
        Su-24 is considered quite difficult to pilot a machine and has a high accident rate. Only during flight tests were lost 14 Su-24 and Su-24M. After taking the aircraft into service, 5-6 accidents and catastrophes occurred annually, in particular, during the period 1988-1992, 27 aircraft crashed [48].
        1. +3
          15 December 2023 18: 24
          Compare the round with the square, the front-line bomber with the delivery of infantry and cargo. Su-24 and Su-34 have ejection seats and a fairly high chance of rescuing pilots in an emergency. And the accidents on the Osprey are still related to technical issues, and not to the human factor or military losses as on the Su-24.
      2. +1
        15 December 2023 10: 31
        It has two engines and an additional auxiliary power unit, which is capable of delivering 30 percent of the power of the main engines for some time before landing.
      3. Lad
        0
        15 December 2023 21: 11
        This is a misconception. The Chinook has essentially the same design. And there is no avalanche of “bricks”. So it's not the scheme itself.
        1. 0
          16 December 2023 06: 17
          The patterns are different along and across.
    2. +1
      23 December 2023 12: 32
      experiments are not needed, because you are writing nonsense, you should start designing intergalactic starships or a perpetual motion machine, or a time machine.
  7. +3
    15 December 2023 07: 19
    The Osprey has a higher crash rate than its US Army equivalent, the UH-60 Black Hawk.

    it is not equivalent.
    Another strange thing is that after 2017 there were no Osprey accidents at all until 2022, when there were 2 accidents, and 2023 - two more. There must be a reason.
    1. +4
      15 December 2023 07: 46
      They believed that all problems had been solved and reduced maintenance requirements.
    2. 0
      15 December 2023 07: 48
      There must be a reason.

      The US Marine Corps has been aware of a critical gearbox problem on MV-2010 Osprey tiltrotors since 22 and has trained crews to deal with the problem instead of grounding the combat vehicles.

      On June 8, 2022, one of the MV-22s crashed in Southern California (https://t.me/new_militarycolumnist/84889). Five people on board were killed. The cause of the accident was the gearbox.

      Despite the Corps' claims that its crews were capable of solving the problem in-flight, the investigation released today said experienced Osprey pilots were unable to do anything when the problem occurred because they simply did not have time to react to it.
      1. 0
        15 December 2023 08: 27
        It looks strange that from 2017 to 2022 there was not a single accident, and then 2 in 2022 and 2 in 2023.
        This is somehow strange.
  8. -2
    15 December 2023 07: 46
    Recently, Americans have experienced an increase in incidents of aircraft crashes.
    In addition to the Osprey, an F-16 fighter crashed into the Yellow Sea during an exercise - the plane crashed into the water after takeoff from Kunsan Air Base, 178 km south of Seoul. The fighter was making a training flight.
    The cause of the crash is still unknown. According to preliminary information, the fighter pilot ejected.

    A US Navy Boeing P8 Poseidon overshot the runway and crashed into the ocean. Ten people were on board and were evacuated by emergency services with minor injuries. The plane itself has taken a sip of water and is about to be removed from the ocean.

    On December 7, an American F-15 SA of the Kingdom's Air Force crashed in eastern Saudi Arabia, killing the crew.
    It’s gone.
    1. -1
      15 December 2023 08: 32
      It’s gone.

      This is what is strange. Completely different apparatuses, completely different subordination. No connection.
    2. 0
      15 December 2023 09: 18
      Stop falling. No pity. soldier
    3. +10
      15 December 2023 09: 51
      Quote: Ascetic
      Recently, Americans have experienced an increase in incidents of aircraft crashes.
      In addition to the Osprey, an F-16 fighter crashed into the Yellow Sea during an exercise - the plane crashed into the water after takeoff from Kunsan Air Base, 178 km south of Seoul. The fighter was making a training flight.
      The cause of the crash is still unknown. According to preliminary information, the fighter pilot ejected.

      A US Navy Boeing P8 Poseidon overshot the runway and crashed into the ocean. Ten people were on board and were evacuated by emergency services with minor injuries. The plane itself has taken a sip of water and is about to be removed from the ocean.

      On December 7, an American F-15 SA of the Kingdom's Air Force crashed in eastern Saudi Arabia, killing the crew.
      It’s gone.

      Look at the number of aircraft in the USA, at the average flight time of a pilot per year and you will understand whether this is a lot or a little... yes, in the states a dozen cars can crash a year, and in Gabon there is only one, but this does not mean that Gabon has a much better accident rate...
      PS: regarding the article - a strange machine translation with a strange message...
  9. +8
    15 December 2023 08: 33
    It seems to me that another important factor is increasing the frequency of flights. I don’t know how often such devices fly in America. But as they say, the safest plane is the one that doesn’t fly. We, too, have encountered aircraft accidents since the beginning of the SVO, because we began to fly a lot and more often.
  10. -6
    15 December 2023 09: 08
    Americans in general have been following the idea of ​​universalism for a long time, more than a hundred years. We got infected at one time from Frenchies. True, over these hundred years, only the famous 5"/38 gun has turned out to be truly universal. But they still puff and try. "FXNUMX", by the way, is from the same opera.
    In general, a classic example of how to break an oblong glass object laughing.
    1. -3
      15 December 2023 11: 11
      Quote: Grossvater
      True, over these hundred years only the famous 5"/38 gun has become truly universal.

      5"/38 was pulled out by an excellent SUAO. As soon as problems began with it, the gun immediately became the least useful of all anti-aircraft artillery and was only suitable for working on high-altitude horizontal bombers. Moreover, during “manual work” the VN and GN gunners often tried to aim at different targets (USS Enterprise Action report. 10.11.1942/XNUMX/XNUMX).
  11. 0
    15 December 2023 12: 02
    1995, 286 computer, toy "LHX" helicopter simulator. Perhaps it can still be found online.
    Rescue mission - you need to save your pilot at the front line. The mission is transport and rescue, two helicopters to choose from: UH-60 and Osprey. I tried it on the Osprey - well, what the hell, the speed is high, but you can easily get killed. Flew on UH-60/
  12. +2
    15 December 2023 13: 13
    such a helicopter disease as the “vortex ring” effect... During such a landing, the main rotor blades fell into the vortex flow created earlier, causing the lifting force to decrease and the machine to “sag,” which often ended with the machine falling altogether.

    The vortex ring effect or toroidal vortex is when, when the permissible vertical descent speed is exceeded, an upward flow is intensely formed over the rotor hub, resulting in air vortices that envelop the rotor rotor, causing significant losses of lift. As a result, the rotor power is spent on the vortex movement of air masses without creating additional lift.
  13. +2
    15 December 2023 15: 39
    Pilot should fly it like he stole it motto of 160soar, the sole CV operator.
    In a short period of time, the second article about unfitness Osprey, while modifications are mentioned only in passing: MV-, CV-, CMV-. Here, different operating conditions will manifest themselves; accordingly, CV is the most severe; CMV - the most comfortable; MV is somewhere in the middle. Well, and accordingly the requirements for service... everyone is sad here now.
    The car really was so revolutionary that the designers had to...
    - this phrase is the whole point of the article. Each new generation of technology brings with it an increase in efficiency and complication of operation - a normal process.
    Quote: Pete Mitchell 8.12.23/XNUMX/XNUMX
    The idea is good, the car was brought into production and operation. The fact that the auxiliary vehicle costs as much as a fighter and the flight hour as a squadron - let Amer’s taxpayers worry
  14. 0
    15 December 2023 20: 49
    I never understood the reason for placing engines at the ends of the wing. There is a shaft connecting these engines. It would not be more logical to place the engine in the fuselage. Moreover, on the new tiltrotor the engine is stationary and only the propellers turn.
    1. 0
      15 December 2023 21: 34
      This idea arose in the interwar period, as soon as the wing became thick enough to accommodate the shaft. Indeed, why do we need airplanes with 2, 4 or even 6 engines in the wing, creating high drag and requiring great strength from the wing, when you can place the engines in an already streamlined body, and have only the propellers themselves and the drive to them in the wing. It seems that they didn’t even make it to prototypes.
  15. +2
    15 December 2023 21: 54
    For the first production car in its class, it is even too good. Can be compared with the Mi-26 (about the same number were produced, and although the machine has a much more conservative design, it also has unique characteristics). There were more “bears” and they killed more people.
  16. 0
    16 December 2023 19: 42
    Yes, of course, a tiltrotor has significant advantages over both an airplane and a helicopter.
    As you know, universal tools do everything... equally poorly. It's funny, but it's not a joke, it's a completely serious engineering assessment. The fact is that every node, every part that is present in the system, and at the same time does not participate in the performance of the main function, greatly reduces the overall reliability of the system.
    A wing in which the drives responsible for the vertical positions of the engines dangle uselessly is a bad wing! Overweight, low-tech shape to perform its main function - horizontal flight and maneuvers. And this must be said about all the tiltrotor mechanisms.
    Our technology has almost reached the limits of improvement. Physics does not give us any new ideas and approaches. Physics is dead. It is sad. But at the same time there are also advantages - we already know very well how new structures will behave, in the design of which certain approaches have been applied.
    Simply put, it was initially known that these rattlers would be monstrously destructive. And that they will take heavy sacrifices for their vertical landings and takeoffs. Sacrifices of blood and death. This was planned. Well, now the Americans no longer want to pay the bloody price...
  17. exo
    +1
    17 December 2023 16: 00
    A unique and very useful device. There is no data on the causes of the disasters. Therefore, it is impossible to draw conclusions. It is clear that it is not easy to pilot. It’s a stretch to compare it with the unique Soviet ekranoplanes. I tend to lean towards the human factor.
  18. 0
    26 December 2023 04: 41
    In theory, a tilted rotor should be fine, but the KA-22 is...... (one view is that there is a fairly obvious flaw in its design: its rotor is mounted on top of the wing, causing the downdraft to hit directly the wing, creating resistance to lifting the aircraft, and in combination with mutual interference between the wing vortices and the ground vortices (which can easily lead to loss of control)
  19. +1
    9 January 2024 22: 54
    Maybe all the problems are because there is no Russian Sikorsky?
  20. +1
    14 January 2024 08: 47
    It was as if I was reading a text written by a neural network... Some incoherence and just a sea of ​​water...
  21. 0
    11 February 2024 18: 34
    New ones don’t break, but old ones run the risk of breaking. You just need to change them more often.