The V-22 Osprey

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2007, 08:02
by flames
I would like to get as much info on this aircraft as I can. More on the tilting rotors. So please if you have any info on it let us know.
Cheers :pint:

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2007, 07:08
by Parkeran
My Grandfather was there when they first rolled the Osprey out! I have always enjoyed the stories he tells me. I'll ask him for some information to give you.

Unread postPosted: 11 Sep 2007, 15:35
by SixerViper
Can you imagine the precessional force on the rotors/props when they rotate the engines? I bet those rotor bearings take a beating!

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2007, 06:40
by parrothead
I hadn't thought of that, but :shock: ! Yeah, it's not just the rotor bearings - the entire engine mounts have to take a real beating...

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2007, 23:56
by flames
Thanks. All the info I can get will be a real big help!! :cheers:

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2007, 01:35
by SixerViper
Waaaaaay back in the "good ole days" when Nieuports and Camels and Fokkers had rotary engines, they would tend to climb when turned to the left and tend to dive when turned to the right. I'm assuming that the prop turned clockwise when viewed from the cockpit, just like american planes do. This is all due to the huge precessional force from that rotating engine.

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2007, 02:54
by Roscoe
Not only that they turned significantly tighter (left?) so most breaks were left. Good pilots would anticipate that and lead turn them before taking the first shot that alerted them to his presence

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2007, 01:37
by flames
Thanks!!

Unread postPosted: 16 Sep 2007, 05:50
by TC
V-22s...What a PIECE! Come on Bell, it's only been, what? 20 years? By the time the first unit reaches IOC, it'll be time to fly it to AMARC. :lol:

Unread postPosted: 17 Sep 2007, 07:34
by Roscoe
Can't blame Bell entirely, as much as I would like to. Between DOD trying to kill it multiple times (Osprey is THE Congressional Pet Rock) and the services adding ridiculous requirements, this thing was bound to take forever.

FWIW, I am on the AFOTEC IOT&E test team as the lead for SIRFC (RF ECM package).

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2007, 05:04
by habu2
V-22 rotors are counter-rotating.

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2007, 05:33
by johnwill
To finish habu2's sentence,
so the local precessional torques are still there to affect bearings, engine mounts and such, but the left rotor and right rotor precessional torques cancel each other. Therefore the airplane does not experience the unwanted effects mentioned in previous posts.

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2007, 06:46
by flames
Cheers!!! :DAny more info out there...?

Unread postPosted: 22 Sep 2007, 03:00
by habu2
Thanks Johnwill, it was late and i was tired...

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2007, 13:12
by elp
V-22 Osprey: A Flying Shame
Wednesday, Sep. 26, 2007 By MARK THOMPSON

Interesting read 8 pages...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... -1,00.html

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2007, 04:12
by Gums
Salute!

Someplace around here I have a XV-22 (or whatever they called it) flight manual. It's about 12 or 13 years old, but damned neat.

We were working up the stores management system for the Special Ops version. Were using our design for the Commanche and USMC Super Cobra upgrade.

I'll keep searching, as "she who must be obeyed" frequntly "cleans up" my war room.

*****

Lemme tellya, that thing looked really neat here at Eglin during the climatic hangar drill. Having the flight manual helped explain a lot of what we saw when it taxied, hovered and transitioned.

I truly believe I could fly the thing, given the FLCS and controls. To wit:

- a slide switch on the equivalent of the cyclic that commanded horizontal translation. Neat, as no rudder/stick input required. If you wanted to turn the nose, use rudder at same time and you rotated while moving sideways. Once in horizontal flight the rudder pedals commanded no sierra rudder, but not when in the "helo" mode.

- The nacelle pitch used a dedicated switch, not a lever like the 'vaark or Tomcat. So you could "beep" the nacelles a bit at a time until moving along like a real plane

- the FLCS made for neat transitions to hover. The thing would zoom in at a hundred feet, not change pitch attitude, but nacelles were tilting the whole way. It would slow until in a hover and the nose never rose a degree (look at helos when they come to a hover on ingress). Sucker looked like it was on a wire.

- once in hover, the thing was rock solid due to the FLCS. Kinda spooky. And pilot didn't have to do anything, just like the Viper when you relax pressure on the stick.

******

I'll search for the manual and report back

Gums sends .....

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2007, 22:43
by Roscoe
Gums, I have no doubt you could fly it. I had the opportunity to fly it in the Sim at Kirtland, and with minimal coaching I was able to take off, convert to forward flight around the flag pole, convert back to hover and land.

If this ham-fisted engineer can do it...

That said, the airplane is pretty limited in what it can do. Quite frankly, it was a mistake to buy. Can't carry the payloads required, can't auto-rotate worth a damn, can't hover when one rotor is in ground effect and the other isn't (picture the standard lateral approach into a carrier or onto a helipad on a tall building, or laterally slide over the edge of a cliff) without the bird getting into a violent lateral oscillation, can't effectively hoist or fast rope due to the horrendous downwash (thanks to the world's highest disk loading), etc...

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2007, 22:53
by flames
Thanks for the info.

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2007, 22:57
by elp
Roscoe wrote:can't hover when one rotor is in ground effect and the other isn't (picture the standard lateral approach into a carrier or onto a helipad on a tall building, or laterally slide over the edge of a cliff) ...


Damn. That statement there by you just put it all into some perspective for the layperson.

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2007, 23:00
by elp
Roscoe wrote:... can't effectively hoist or fast rope due to the horrendous downwash (thanks to the world's highest disk loading), etc...



Someone told me that this when it was tested instantly knocked it out of the ability for USAF to use it for rescue in the situation where it would be hovering over a PJ in the water. The down-wash was just too excessive to work around.

Unread postPosted: 01 Oct 2007, 06:09
by Roscoe
Yup, that is why the CSAR community went with a classical helicopter design.

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2009, 01:33
by Lawman
Roscoe wrote:
That said, the airplane is pretty limited in what it can do. Quite frankly, it was a mistake to buy. Can't carry the payloads required, can't auto-rotate worth a damn, can't hover when one rotor is in ground effect and the other isn't (picture the standard lateral approach into a carrier or onto a helipad on a tall building, or laterally slide over the edge of a cliff) without the bird getting into a violent lateral oscillation, can't effectively hoist or fast rope due to the horrendous downwash (thanks to the world's highest disk loading), etc...


Have you ever seen the autorotational profile of any of our currant utility/assault helicopters? How about when they are loaded up around Max Gross as is typical with operations? How about when they are in the high density altitudes typical to the currant AO which greatly reduces available hover torque?

Ive heard the auto aurgument again and again. I dont even have a dog in this race, Im in the Army. But putting your faith in Autorotations like its some mysterious black magic that will prevent the helo from coming out of the air like a comet is a mistake. Fact of the matter is the Osprey is actually more survivable under the same fire as a Hawk or Phrog as its engines are so much further apart. Not to mention the fact that the a pilot is never as proffecient at autorotation in his career as he is when he graduates primary in flight school. Hell the Navy/Marines dont even do theirs all the way to the ground and there are loads of differences between auto'ing a clean, 2900lbs 206 than a fat loaded heavy helo. And Ive watched Marines fast rope out of it. They go out the ramp.

And the one rotor in one rotor out is crap. If that were true we wouldnt be able to do pinnicle landings with the tandem helos we have today. Yes they have more cyclic autority than the Osprey does lateral but if when you were saying were true they never would have survived sea trials.

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2009, 02:47
by TC
If it comes down to auto-rotation in ANY chopper, it would be wise to assume the position and kiss your @$$ goodbye. Maybe you make it. Maybe you don't. Maybe the Rams move back to L.A. this year. At any rate, I don't want to take my chances.

If it spins to fly, it sucks to fly.

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2009, 03:00
by Lawman
TC wrote:If it comes down to auto-rotation in ANY chopper, it would be wise to assume the position and kiss your @$$ goodbye. Maybe you make it. Maybe you don't. Maybe the Rams move back to L.A. this year. At any rate, I don't want to take my chances.

If it spins to fly, it sucks to fly.


In a loaded Apache, the theory is to throw a rock out the window and attempt to fly to the ground at a steeper angle than it does. If you attempt to follow the rock with all the drag on the pylons, you'll loose to much rotor RPM.

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2009, 01:45
by Roscoe
Lawman wrote:And the one rotor in one rotor out is crap. If that were true we wouldnt be able to do pinnicle landings with the tandem helos we have today. Yes they have more cyclic autority than the Osprey does lateral but if when you were saying were true they never would have survived sea trials.


It's not the twin rotors that's the issue, it's the flight control computer.

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2009, 01:56
by Lawman
Ok... so it managed to do all those lateral slide shipboard landings how exactly? If it cant handle the differencial of ground effect the solution is pretty simple, ground effect goes away once you get above the altitude of your rotor disk span, and theirs is significantly smaller than that of a Phrog or Huey. Talking with some of my boat helo bretherin about shipboard ops the only time you even notice the effect is on the big boats during the last 5 feet or so of decent. So you make your approach 10 feet higher than usual, allow the aircraft to slide right until over your spot, decend to land. If you can control a hover at 50 feet AGL, its nothing to do it at 60.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2009, 00:43
by discofishing
"The technical challenge of rotating an airplane's wings and engines in midair led to delays, which in turn led to an ever higher price tag."

That's from the article the CNN/Time article. The wings don't rotate in midair. This leads me to believe the author doesn't know what he's talking about. I discontinued reading after that sentence.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2009, 18:31
by That_Engine_Guy
discofishing wrote:"The technical challenge of rotating an airplane's wings and engines in midair led to delays, which in turn led to an ever higher price tag."

That's from the article the CNN/Time article. The wings don't rotate in midair. This leads me to believe the author doesn't know what he's talking about. I discontinued reading after that sentence.


Check that DF... CNN/Time are correct just not how you're thinking.

The wing rotates to fold, the props needed to fold as well for storage.

You may be thinking about the "Tilt-Wing" test aircraft used prior to "Tilt-Rotor" designs.

Don't just think about flight conditions when talking about military aircraft, they often have 'special needs' for military service.

One of the C-5's biggest hurtles was 'kneeling' to load/unload cargo. Specifications for the aircraft said it needed to load/unload without any support equipment. (Loaders or external docks/ramps) Lockheed developed the kneeling landing gear to shorten the stance of the aircraft; which still has the occasional problems yet today. Has nothing to do with flight, but without it the Boeing 747 may have been our largest cargo aircraft. It could carry more cargo, further, faster than the C-5 but wasn't 'self-loading'

Likewise without the folding wing the V-22 wouldn't have been suited for USN or USMC use. I highly doubt it would have seen service without a full multi-service commitment.

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2009, 06:29
by Roscoe
The author was talking about rotating the engine nacelles in flight, not folding the wings.

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2009, 18:28
by Lawman
Roscoe wrote:The author was talking about rotating the engine nacelles in flight, not folding the wings.


So if one of the most redundently designed hydraulic systems ever put on an aircraft fails theres and issue.... Wow insightful.

You know the Bell 206B, the most common and "safest" helicopter per flight our in the world has major issues with its hydraulic system. There's even an emergency proceedure for it called "Uncommanded Flight Control Movement." Ive seen video of one have an incedent while hovering into a hot pit for refuel... the thing literally went from a flat level 3 foot hover to standing on its face in less than 2 seconds with no imput from the pilot. 8 million dollars of Bell Helicopters money says the problem doesnt exist but they have a reputation to maintain.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2010, 23:13
by discofishing
"The technical challenge of rotating an airplane's wings and engines in midair led to delays"



TEG,
I know the Osprey can fold itself up almost like a transformer when stowed on the flight deck, but the author was asserting that the wings rotated in midair which they don't do. The LTV XC-142 had wings that rotated in midair, maybe that was what the author was thinking of.

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2012, 07:14
by hcobb
Tiltwing is better at VTOL, Tiltrotor is better at STOL. This was considered during V-22 development.

So maybe Bell's Magellan needs some tilt-tech and therefore is being built in Amarillo?

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/01/09 ... er-in.html

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2012, 00:21
by aaam
hcobb wrote:Tiltwing is better at VTOL, Tiltrotor is better at STOL. This was considered during V-22 development.

So maybe Bell's Magellan needs some tilt-tech and therefore is being built in Amarillo?

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/01/09 ... er-in.html


A Tilt-Wing is absolutely not better at VTOL. The primary reason is the high disc loading inherent in the design. It also is poorer in the hover and is more limited in the transition phase, which is a more complicated process. Where it is better is at the upper end of the high speed cruise, since that same high disc loading provides less drag then.

Given that ever since contract award the V-22 and its predecessor JVX have been a Tilt-Rotor (a Tilt-Rotor was the only concept that could meet the requirements), I'm not sure how Tilt-Wing was considered in V-22 development.

The new Bell 525 (Magellan) may turn out to be all new (if Textron doesn't keep siphoning off R&D money) or it may be an upgraded 412. Hope it's the former.

Some other points relative to older posts:

Like most large transport V/STOLs (i.e. helicopters), the Osprey's autorotation to a full stop characteristics are not that good. However, the ability to autorotate to a complete landing was never a requirement. The requirement was to achieve a certain level of survivability to the ground from a total engine loss through either autorotation or gliding. The V-22 team chose the latter. The V-22 can actually land with the nacelles full forward. With the blades stopped at the 12, 4 and 8 o'clock positions the blades don't impact the ground. If they are rotating, the blades are designed to break off in such a way that they are thrown away from the aircraft.

The inability to hover with one proprotor in ground effect and one out will certainly be a surprise to those crews that have done it. Of course, if your field is high enough, that would be true, but then a conventional helo also as a limit on how high it can HOGE as well. For the V-22, HOGE is 5,400 ft., according to NAVAIR. So, if you're sailing an LHD along at say, 6,000 ft., and you let one proprotor go over the side...yep, you're going to have a problem. The issue is where you run out of roll control to offset the limited difference in lift. Tandem rotor helicopters also have a differential lift issue, yet somehow they manage to survive.

The CSAR community went with conventional designs because when the specifications were announced, there would be no credit given for speed or range above conventional helo capabilities and the V-22 would clearly be more expensive. Downwash is absolutely an issue. It's worthy of note, though, that USAF picked the H-47, which is not known for gentle breeze-like conditions under it in the hover. In fact, data coming back from its use by the Brits indicate a problem on rescue missions or insertions where it's downwash is setting off IEDs and mines. Frankly, though, for CSAR, it's probably more effective and less dangerous to actually land than hover whenever possible for the rescue. V-22 is actually too big for classic CSAR, but there's no money to develop a more optimally sized bird. SAR, BTW, is one of the roles envisioned for the smaller AW-609. In fact, that's the reason its door is on the starboard, rather than port side as is more normal in civilian executive transport.

As far as a joint program to survive, originally the Marine requirement was embodied in a program called HXM. It likely would have been a Tilt-Rotor as well, but that would be because of the range required, not speed. The great speed would be a fortuitous fallout. DoD turned it inot a joint program, JVX, and that added a bunch of requirements the plane had to try and meet that made it more complex and expensive. As far as the folding wing goes, that was essential for Marine and Navy use (they still have an unfunded requirement for 48 for COD and CSAR). For USAF's requirement alone, it would cost too much to make a 2nd fixed wing version. After all, even though they didn't need it, the outer wings on all Air Force F-4s retained the outer wing folding mechanism, they just deleted the power folding motor.

The Time magazine article was, as are so many things it does, a hit piece.

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2012, 15:24
by Asif

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2012, 23:22
by count_to_10
Does anybody know how much weight the drive-shaft and gearboxes add, and how much work is lost to them under normal conditions?
I saw someone suggest that the next generation might be electric, with turbo-shaft engines in the main body that drive generators and electrically driven rotors. I can see a number of problems that might solve, but I'm curious how the weight and efficiency trade-offs would come out.

Unread postPosted: 07 Sep 2012, 23:28
by count_to_10
There are pallets that can be loaded into cargo planes that let them launch Griffin missiles from their rear loading ramp. Could something like that be adapted for the V-22?

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Ray ... les-07182/

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2012, 00:42
by discofishing
Does anybody know how much weight the drive-shaft and gearboxes add, and how much work is lost to them under normal conditions?


The drive shafts are most likely pretty lightweight as they are made of light metals like aluminum and are hollow inside.

I saw someone suggest that the next generation might be electric, with turbo-shaft engines in the main body that drive generators and electrically driven rotors. I can see a number of problems that might solve, but I'm curious how the weight and efficiency trade-offs would come out.


That posses challenges to weight and battle damage tolerance.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2013, 02:34
by mc5wes
Any CV-22 maintenance guys on this forum?

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2013, 08:30
by discofishing
Would anyone in AFSOC do online forums, period?

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2013, 20:52
by mc5wes
Yes, I was Rescue once then AFSOC then Rescue again.

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2013, 12:22
by boff180
Just to update this thread.

The first pair of CV-22's out of an eventual fleet of 10 arrived at RAF Mildenhall at the beginning of the week.

Ta

Andy

Re: The V-22 Osprey

Unread postPosted: 16 Jul 2014, 07:32
by lookieloo
As someone who's ridden on a clapped-out CH-46s on occasion (once butt-a$$ naked under a mylar blanket), I'm gonna just call this guy a $hithead who's never done so himself.
Your Periodic Reminder That the V-22 Is a Piece of Junk
Military tiltrotor still doesn’t work, still costs too much

See: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/your-p ... 72a8a23ccf

Re: The V-22 Osprey

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2014, 01:37
by h-bomb
lookieloo wrote:As someone who's ridden on a clapped-out CH-46s on occasion (once butt-a$$ naked under a mylar blanket), I'm gonna just call this guy a $hithead who's never done so himself.
Your Periodic Reminder That the V-22 Is a Piece of Junk
Military tiltrotor still doesn’t work, still costs too much

See: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/your-p ... 72a8a23ccf


Notice he stated that a CH-46 cost 6 million in 1987, but we have not bought one since 1971...? The Marines said that they had CH-53 "Scout" LZ for the V-22 which he later changed to cleared. Not sure who this "Jack McCain" hope it is not the senators kid....

Re: The V-22 Osprey

Unread postPosted: 17 Jul 2014, 02:37
by count_to_10
lookieloo wrote:As someone who's ridden on a clapped-out CH-46s on occasion (once butt-a$$ naked under a mylar blanket), I'm gonna just call this guy a $hithead who's never done so himself.
Your Periodic Reminder That the V-22 Is a Piece of Junk
Military tiltrotor still doesn’t work, still costs too much

See: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/your-p ... 72a8a23ccf

Does this guy know anything about what he says he's talking about? Last I heard, the V-22 was better at getting in and out of brown-out conditions because it can use it's tilting rotors to blow the dust rearward.

Re: The V-22 Osprey

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2014, 16:37
by XanderCrews
count_to_10 wrote:
lookieloo wrote:As someone who's ridden on a clapped-out CH-46s on occasion (once butt-a$$ naked under a mylar blanket), I'm gonna just call this guy a $hithead who's never done so himself.
Your Periodic Reminder That the V-22 Is a Piece of Junk
Military tiltrotor still doesn’t work, still costs too much

See: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/your-p ... 72a8a23ccf

Does this guy know anything about what he says he's talking about? Last I heard, the V-22 was better at getting in and out of brown-out conditions because it can use it's tilting rotors to blow the dust rearward.


Its just a bunch of recycled Sikorsky propaganda that refuses to die.


In other news:

http://defensetech.org/2014/12/09/ospre ... -missiles/

Re: The V-22 Osprey

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2017, 21:08
by neptune
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... sh-440174/

MV-22 struck flight deck before fatal crash

10 August, 2017 SOURCE:
BY: Leigh Giangreco

A US Marine Corps Bell Boeing MV-22 struck the flight deck of an amphibious transport dock before crashing into waters off the coast of East Australia on 5 August, a US Navy document shows. The tilt rotor launched that evening from the amphibious carrier USS Bonhomme Richard during a joint exercise with the Australian navy, carrying 26 Marines on board. But the Osprey hit the US Navy's 25,000t-class USS Green Bay during its final approach in the Shoalwater Bay Training Area, Queensland, Australia. After the collision, the MV-22 crashed into the water, a 9 August safety report states. The Marines declared three men on board the MV-22 dead on 7 August after calling off search rescue efforts in waters 15.6nm (18mi) off the Queensland coast.. The Green Bay and other ships rescued the other 23 Marines on board the aircraft. The Marines have since lifted a grounding order on all aircraft in the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, including the MV-22s. The cause of the crash remains under investigation.

The incident is part of a rash of accidents sweeping the Marines' aviation fleet this year and stoking a spike in Class A mishaps, which incur either deaths or excessive damage. Earlier this July, a Marine Forces Reserve-operated Lockheed Martin KC-130T crashed, leaving 16 Marines dead. Twelve USMC KC-130Ts remain grounded. Updated data from 10 August shows a Class A mishap rate of 4.56 per 100,000 flight hours to date from the beginning of Fiscal 2017, according to data posted online by the Navy Safety Center. Marine aircraft compiled a Class A mishap rate of 3.42 during the same period in fiscal 2016.
:)

Re: The V-22 Osprey

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2017, 23:11
by aaam
Very early word is that it came in too low and fast; not confirmed yet. Emphasizes the need for more proficiency hours for our crews. This kind of accident is not confined to the Osprey.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdlqCeQfGmo

Re: The V-22 Osprey

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2020, 03:55
by charlielima223
The V-22 has come a long way over the years. Derided as a death trap in earlier years and was seen as too complex and unreliable.
Image

Now its become a valuable work horse for SOF. Japan is now going to become a user for their new "carrier". Now a new version for the USN for a long awaited replacement for the venerable C2 Greyhound.
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/02/nav ... -it-means/
The first CMV-22B aircraft was delivered Friday to the Navy, where it will replace the C2A Greyhound, the venerable tail-hook aircraft that has flown on and off aircraft carriers since 1966.

A second Osprey arrived at Pax River the week before for the final round of testing. The fleet of Navy Ospreys should be operational within six years from contract to delivery carrying out a much wider array of roles than the old Greyhounds executed. They’ll be flying VIPs and crew back and forth, as do the venerable CODs, but they will also do search and rescue and support for Naval Special Warfare.
***
The aircraft differs from the Marine Corps and Air Force versions, boasting an enhanced fuel capacity which required wing modifications to deal with the greater weight. There is another key aspect. The CMV-22, unlike the C-2, can carry an F-35C engine onboard a carrier. In 2015, I was onboard the USS Wasp when an Osprey brought an engine onboard the ship to prove the capability; The Navy signed its first contract for the CMV-22 program that same year.

An F-35B pilot is now head of the Osprey program at Pax River. Col. Matthew “Squirt” Kelly told me in an interview last fall about the impact of broadening the plane’s set of users around the world:

“There is no other air platform that has the breadth of aircraft laydown across the world than does the V-22. And now that breadth is expanding with the inclusion of the carrier fleet and the Japanese. We currently have a sustainment system which works but we need to make it better in terms of supporting global operations. With the US Navy onboard to operate the Osprey as well, we will see greater momentum to improve the supply chain.”


More stuff
https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopter ... 79.article

Re: The V-22 Osprey

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2020, 02:14
by noth
Meanwhile, Israel can't afford a fleet of V-22s for the time being:

The Israel Air Force will not be procuring Boeing’s V-22 Osprey due to budgetary issues, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
While the military believes there is an operational need for between 12 and 14 aircraft that can take off and land like helicopters but fly like fixed-wing planes, there are not enough funds to procure the tilt-rotor aircraft.
The V-22 is designed for sensitive, extensive missions during times of war and for routine use.
The IAF is modernizing its squadrons of aging fighter jets and helicopters and believes there needs to be a mix of heavy-lift helicopters and the V-22, a defense source told the Post last year.
As part of the new procurements funded in large part by the Memorandum of Understanding signed between Jerusalem and Washington, which would see Israel receive $38 billion in military assistance over the next decade, Israel has purchased two squadrons of F-35 Adir stealth fighters and is currently deciding between Boeing’s Chinook or Lockheed Martin’s CH-53K heavy-lift helicopters.


https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Its-o ... -22-617510