Indian interest in V-22 Osprey intensifies

[Capt.Popeye]

STOBAR, or CATOBAR has no relevance for the V22, since it will be used the same way from all plattforms, with vertical take off and landing. For most of the possible roles of IN it wouldn't make a difference either, be it tanker, or ASW, since it will remain to be the best choice here. Only for the AEW role on a CATOBAR carrier, the E-2 plattform offers advantages over an V22 AEW, on the other hand IN would benfit from a single plattform for all carriers, which are interchangeable and ease training and logistics. Otherwise IN would use low capable Ka31 on the STOBAR carriers and high capable E-2s on the CATOBAR carrier, not a good mix for sure and opens space for a midway. That's why we should approach the US to get the V22 as an AEW plattform for our own radar system, which would give operational and industrial benifts.

No, @sancho you don't get it.
On paper; there is no diff between STOBAR or CATOBAR to operate V-22s, and we're simply paper aviators here. I was only trying to explain the line of thought in the IN. Since the IN has not frozen its own design of IAC 2 wrt CATOBAR/STOBAR, its interest in the Osprey is simply that; interest.

If the IAC 2 design is fixed on CATOBAR, then the IN will pitch primarily for the E-2D Hawkeye; their interest in V-22s is tempered by two things: cost of ownership and ops, operational issues. Even with a STOBAR configuration, the Osprey is part of IN's "brain-storming exercises". Pls write this down someplace, then we'll see what happens 5 years down the line...

Maybe the IAF too is showing interest in the Osprey now; which was'nt so apparent earlier. But let us see what happens eventually. Likely that the IAF will end up acquiring more Chinooks for CSAR; but lets wait and see

About the last part of your post; will the US give plain-vanilla V-22s to India to configure as India sees fit?
Assuming (of course) that the IN wants to finally acquire the V-22.

Sancho; remember how both the Chinooks and Apaches got finally selected in their respective competitions; though many here thought otherwise. BTW, were you among them?
Though I can remember which way my prediction went.

 

[Astra-2013]

seeing current economy condition and bribery cases if they want it i will not come before 2020 i think by that time HAL can make this type of planes. but surely IMRH will be there.

 

[sancho]

Then there is the question if the ICG is serious in their interest (if what this guys says is correct):

They might have made some presentations, but for Indian or any CG it simply is a too costly aircraft, although an excellent SAR / MEDIVAC plattform.

Some pics to show possible roles for the V22 in Indian forces:

IAF CSAR

IAF Special Ops

IN CSAR

IN ASW

(V22 could be used with dipping sonar like an helicopter, or from higher altitude with MAD, SAR radar and FLIR like an MPA)


IN Tanker

IN AEW

 

[ANPP]

seeing current economy condition and bribery cases if they want it i will not come before 2020 i think by that time HAL can make this type of planes. but surely IMRH will be there.

Seriously bro, HAL's only achievement is Dhruv so far. While it take 40 years to make such a platform for USA.
And also IMRH is also in different league.

 

[Koovie]

seeing current economy condition and bribery cases if they want it i will not come before 2020 i think by that time HAL can make this type of planes. but surely IMRH will be there.

Even Boeing struggled a lot in making them operational and you think HAL will be able to manufacture them by 2020??

 

[sancho]

No, @sancho you don't get it.
On paper; there is no diff between STOBAR or CATOBAR to operate V-22s

It's actually the other way around, because I said it as well, that if we get catapults the E-2 will be the bettwe AEW plattform, but that still has nothing to do with operating V22 from an CATOBAR carrier. IN could still go for it as a tanker, SAR, or an ASW plattform, the point is, it doesn't matter what naval plattform we consider since there is no limitation wrt take off and landing, like in the case of the E-2, but what role IN might have in mind for it, IF they are really interested.

About the last part of your post; will the US give plain-vanilla V-22s to India to configure as India sees fit?

That is the advantage of the V22, since the US won't pay for an AEW version, so if we fund it, we can ask for our own system. The same will not be possible with the E-2 though, since they obviously want to sell their own system and that comes with operational limitations for us.

Sancho; remember how both the Chinooks and Apaches got finally selected in their respective competitions; though many here thought otherwise. BTW, were you among them?
Though I can remember which way my prediction went.

No problem with that, especially since I always said that the Chinnok would be selected if the Russians can't convince us about secure spare supply and after sale support. My point was and still is, that according to the simple performance and the roles IAF use heavy lift helicopters, the Mi 26 is far superior to the Chinook and that I personally wanted us to join the Eurocopter FTH.
So for me it has nothing to do with proving you or me wrong, if IAF selects an aircraft, I never claimed to know it all anway, but I want our forces to get the best arms and techs according to their needs and to our future threat potential, not because of pride, or preference of certain countries.

I was against the Chinnok, the F16IN, the F18SH and additional C17, I was for the C130J, P8Is, Apaches (for IA) and now the V22.

 

[gambit]

I am not sure that I am convinced yet. The Harriers vent down Jet exhausts towards the deck surface while the Ospreys will vent down Turbo-prop exhausts (in VTOL mode) Which would you think is hotter?
If you have a link for that piece of info; that will be appreciated.

In the above illustration, the top image is common to both types: engine core.

The second image is of the common airliner type jet engine. However, the bulk of thrust comes from the forward fans, not exhaust.

The third image is of the common military type jet engine but in this case, the bulk of thrust is from the exhaust. Any bypass are more towards keeping exhaust temperature under control.

Remember, a jet engine is essentially an internal combustion engine and burnt air/fuel combination must be vented somehow.

For the V-22, it has turbo-prop engines and the bulk of thrust are from the props, far less from the exhaust. The problem here is that the Harrier will redirect its exhaust downwards only when it has to do a direct vertical take-off, which is actually rare. Most Harrier take-offs are either 'normal' full runway kind or the exhausts are at some angle and the aircraft does have forward speed to exploit aerodynamic forces on the wings. Whereas with the Osprey, its exhaust, which is actually no hotter than the Harrier's, is pointed directly at the deck ALL THE TIME. So the problem is not exhaust temperature but DURATION of the same temperature on the deck.

This is not a technically insurmountable problem but for existing ship decks, some methods to either compensate for this temperature or deck reinforcement must be available.

 

[gambit]

I do agree with V22 in IN.
But my doubt is about IAF's requirement. It certainly provide advantages over existing helis. v22 is hybrid of heli & plane. It do vertical take-off & landing and achieve speed upto 400-500km/h easily.

But V22 rotor less than half of Chinooks rotors, means area of wings is less than 4th time of any conventional heli of its weight. So have doubt real doubt over its hovering capability at higher altitude especially when it comes to Himalayan area where air is too rare. However it can fly higher and par-drop(parachute) soldiers but than what is its real benifit over C130 which we recently buy or over An32. Its payload is also less than any heli/aircraft, demand huge money and fuel for operations.
As vortex ring state problem is too dangerous in V22. I have real doubt over IAF's version ( I also insist for future Helicopter development around world especially Mil X1), which also reduce V22 advantage by huge leap.

The vortex ring state problem is neither unique to the Osprey nor is it new.

For those who do not know what is VRS...

Vortex ring state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In forward flight, there is no upward flow (upflow) of air in the hub area. As forward airspeed decreases and vertical descent rates increase, an upflow begins because there are no airfoil surfaces in the mast and blade grip area. As volume of upflow increases, the induced flow (air pulled or "induced" down through the rotor system) of the inner blade sections is overcome and the blades begin to stall near the hub. As the inner blade sections stall, a second set of vortices, similar to the rotor tip vortices, form in the center of the rotor system. The inner set of vortices decreases the amount of lift being produced and causes an increase in sink rate. In an accelerated condition, the inner and outer vortices begin to feed each other to the point where any increase in rotor blade pitch angle increases the interaction between the vortices and increases the rate of descent. In this state, the helicopter is operating in its own downwash, descending through descending air. The failure of a helicopter pilot to recognize and react to the condition can lead to high descent rates and impact with terrain.

Helo pilots are trained to recognize VRS, how to avoid getting into, and how to get out of. Basically, even single digit km/h forward speed will prevent VRS from forming.

The Osprey's critics are over the top. The Osprey is essentially a fixed wings aircraft with some rotary wings capabilities. A major cause of developmental accidents came from the fact that they had fixed- and rotary- pilots demanding cockpit configurations that are well known to each, even when there were test pilots who can fly both, each type of pilot do have a favorite aircraft and accustomed to specific controls configuration.

Difference between fixed-wing aircraft and a rotary wing aircraft. | Aerolink - Pilot school in Barcelona

These are two completely different aircrafts, and it is important to know and understand the difference so that you can decide what kind of piloting job you would like you have.

For a helo, forward momentum is achieved by tilting the entire rotor blade assembly while it is already spinning to provide direct lift. In other words, for forward flight, the helo is the most inefficient aircraft type in the world. Even the blimp is more efficient. The bulk of thrust is directed downward to keep the aircraft in the air while a minor of that bulk is pointing to the rear, via that tilt, to provide some rearward thrust.

This is called the cyclic control...

Helicopter flight controls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The cyclic control is usually located between the pilot's legs and is commonly called the cyclic stick or just cyclic. On most helicopters, the cyclic is similar in appearance to a joystick in a conventional aircraft. The control is called the cyclic because it changes the pitch angle of the rotor blades cyclically. That is, the pitch or feathering angle of the rotor blades changes depending upon their position as they rotate around the hub so that all blades will change their angle the same amount at the same point in the cycle. The change in cyclic pitch has the effect of changing the angle of attack and thus the lift generated by a single blade as it moves around the rotor disk. This in turn causes the blades to fly up or down in sequence, depending on the changes in lift affecting each individual blade.

The result is to tilt the rotor disk in a particular direction, resulting in the helicopter moving in that direction. If the pilot pushes the cyclic forward, the rotor disk tilts forward, and the rotor produces a thrust vector in the forward direction. If the pilot pushes the cyclic to the right, the rotor disk tilts to the right and produces thrust in that direction, causing the helicopter to move sideways in a hover or to roll into a right turn during forward flight, much as in a conventional aircraft.

This is completely different for a fixed wings pilot. When he push the stick forward, he does not go forward but go into a dive. He is already in forward motion. When he pull on the stick, he climbs or gains altitude, not lose forward speed and momentum but keep the same altitude.

This and many other differences in controls are incorporated into the Osprey and control engineers must accommodate them all. Pilots who are rated for both fixed- and rotary- wings do not have both types of controls AT THE SAME TIME. But now with the Osprey, how do you design a control that can switch between tilting the rotors and elevators at the appropriate time? Do you have two sticks and demand the pilot changes them in flight, especially when he is under combat stress? Do you have the left pilot's control the aircraft in fixed-wing mode and the right pilot's control the aircraft in rotary-wing mode?

Autoration?

The Osprey is not supposed to autorotate AS WELL AS the helo because its rotors are well off centerline. So if autoration have a differential between rotor speed, autorotate and its landing will not be as effective. But even helo pilots do not want to autorotate if they can help it. Since there is an F-35 version that can take-off vertically -- like a helicopter -- may be we should impose the autoration criticism on the F-35.

When you examine the Osprey from a purely engineering challenge, it is not that difficult to suspect its critics have something other than engineering in mind.

 

[Malik Usman]

Its really fast and noisy while you are sitting inside, i myself traveled in it.....feel like bursting the walls of your ears, even you took air lockers...

 

[Capt.Popeye]

@gambit; Thanks for a very lucid explanation of the issues involved.

 

[gambit]

Its really fast and noisy while you are sitting inside, i myself traveled in it.....feel like bursting the walls of your ears, even you took air lockers...

I envy you, friend. I have been in a helo, a jet fighter, an airliner, and a cargo. The worst flight experience I had was in a C-23 Sherpa flying from England (RAF Upper Heyford) to Spain (Zaragoza AB). Because we were passengers and there were limited oxygen masks, the entire flight had to be below 12,000 ft. It was noisy, cold, and bumpy. We had a brief refueling stop in France, I forget which small civilian aerodrome, too small to be called an 'airport', and it was a relief. The locals never seen a military aircraft before, let alone something exotic like a 'jet fighter'. So some of them asked to look around and the crew let them. It was a small cargo aircraft, for God's sake. Back then, I spoke fluent French so I snagged me a lunch date with a local gal who worked part time in the two-story 'tower' that served the place.

 

[ANPP]

The vortex ring state problem is neither unique to the Osprey nor is it new.

For those who do not know what is VRS...

Vortex ring state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Helo pilots are trained to recognize VRS, how to avoid getting into, and how to get out of. Basically, even single digit km/h forward speed will prevent VRS from forming.

The Osprey's critics are over the top. The Osprey is essentially a fixed wings aircraft with some rotary wings capabilities. A major cause of developmental accidents came from the fact that they had fixed- and rotary- pilots demanding cockpit configurations that are well known to each, even when there were test pilots who can fly both, each type of pilot do have a favorite aircraft and accustomed to specific controls configuration.

Difference between fixed-wing aircraft and a rotary wing aircraft. | Aerolink - Pilot school in Barcelona
.

:Lol:
I know that man, what I am saying that this problem is too dangerous in V22 than heli, & in rare air this could be more harmful.(do not copy paste)

 

[Koovie]

Its really fast and noisy while you are sitting inside, i myself traveled in it.....feel like bursting the walls of your ears, even you took air lockers...

You traveled in a V22??!!

How did you manage to do that?

 

[gambit]

:Lol:
I know that man, what I am saying that this problem is too dangerous in V22 than heli, & in rare air this could be more harmful.(do not copy paste)

The tiltrotor itself is not new. However, flying experience with it -- is new. Your method of criticism can be applied to anything, not just to aviation. The tiltrotor can be seen as a hybrid of fixed and rotary wing designs. As such, vulnerabilities and their degrees of severity, when occurs, from both designs will be available. The issue is not to scrap it completely, as critics like you seems to imply but are too cowardly to say so publicly, but to find ways to deal with these vulnerabilities in order to best exploit the design's full potential.

Do you have any idea of the criticisms, polite and not so polite, and of the scorn, the helicopter endured when it first came out? And yet today, it can be found in just about every corner of the world.

Dispelling the Myth of the MV-22

Our search for the VRS boundary started with a thorough review of analytical and wind tunnel research and slow-speed, high-rate-of-descent flight testing. We soon discovered that the body of known actual flight-test data for VRS in other rotorcraft was very small. There were only two other rotorcraft flight research projects known to us at the time we began our initial flight testing, one by NASA Langley in 1964 and one more recently by the ONERA organization in France with a Dauphin helicopter. There was a larger amount of theoretical data available, however, from the private and academic sectors of flight-test research. The principal work we reviewed was from a paper published in 1965 by Kyuichiro Washizu and Akira Azuma of the University of Tokyo.

In other words, before the critics drew their knives, may be they should have done their homework on how much research there are on VRS? Two -- is hardly adequate. So what this mean is that the VRS phenomenon, its occurrence, and how to deal with it, has been mostly by word of mouth throughout the helo community. Hardly any serious study.

The tiltrotor is here to stay. It will have its place in aviation. It is not to replace the helo but to supplement fixed and rotary wings in specific needs and situations.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

You traveled in a V22??!!

How did you manage to do that?

He signed up in the US Marines