I remember landing on a carrier in a Greyhound. I thought my stomach was going to fly out my mouth when that plane hit the arresting cable and we went from 90 knots to 0 in a couple of seconds.
That sounds like it was a fun experience to get to fly on a naval aircraft like that. Also getting to see a carrier, but the landing sounds awful😂. I have a fairly strong stomach but I would die if I experienced that. Also which carrier was it? If you don’t mind me asking.
The idea of using a helicopter or an aircraft to fly around another fixed-wing aircraft seems like the most self-defeating purposeless bulshit I've ever heard in the military. And that's saying something. XD
I was on the Vinson underway mentioned in the video. We almost exclusively had Ospreys on that deployment. I also left on one to escort someone who had a medical issue. It was definitely a much more comfortable ride than a Greyhound. Bonus, I didn't die.
i'm a little baffled by the title in all honesty. even before the most recent crash they have a well established name and reputatation as "the widowmaker"
@@MaticTheProto I’m sure they do but not the level it needs, for example there’s this prototype jet that Russia made the design for maneuverability is probably the best but it is literally uncontrollable with out a computer doing all the work to keep it from crashing so it was only ever a prototype
I've worked with MV-22s. They're big, noisy, and in my opinion kind of ugly, but boy can they pull a lot of weight very quickly. One thing worth noting is that they perform better over water than they do over land, as their engines have been known to get damaged by dust and sand, but seem to have no problem with salt water.
yes, they kick up a LOT OF DUST. that was in the evaluation before they bought them. F35 is facing an even greater problem of burning the regular landing pads.
I think the whole family of V22s are beautiful aircraft and, regardless of their hardiness, are a valuable asset to our military logistics. I live right outside Keesler AFB and see them fly around a few times a year. Recently I got to see a few do some touch and go landings during an airshow and again during a family fun day event at the marina off the north side of the runway.
You forgot the biggest reason that they're switching to CMV-22 Ospreys for carrier onboard delivery. Unlike the F-18, the F-35's engines are too wide to fit inside the C-2 greyhound. The V-22 was designed as a heavy helicopter assault transport to carry troops and small vehicles, so it has a much larger cargo volume that can take the F-135 engine.
This right here is the correct answer. Compared to the F414 engines the F135 engine is MASSIVE. In the F404 to replace afterburner parts I have to lay down and crawl to get into the A/B duct. The F135 I could do crouched walk with no issues.
You've never been in either have you? The C-2A has a much bigger internal volume. The issue is that the C-2A has had many accidents and age related issues so it's heavily derated and C.G. limited from its original specs. The old girl just can't handle the weight like a V-22 can. Secondly, the v-22 team was allowed to disassemble the F-135 engine to make it fit.
@@L0stEngineer I thought the main issue was the giant fan diameter of the F135 even relatively disassembled. On the other hand, you're right that I've never been in any of these planes.
@@thamiordragonheart8682 and the storage case for the engine too... The thing is the V-22 support and fielding team were very audacious and they found a way to make the engine fit. It's very likely they will get more airframes on the order and get more missions for their program.
I suspect the Greyhounds will be kept in a semi ready status among Navy National Guard units for a number of years. Resupply is one of those areas that seems so simple. It is like a paper cut that gets infected- and kills the entire body. It's not a big deal- until it is. So just in case the Navy gets in over its head, the Greyhounds will be waiting in the wings. Ask the Moscova if resupply and maintenance are important. You can't run critical systems if you don't have the parts. It's rather like losing the kingdom for want of a nail.
The Navy has a Navy reserve and yes some of the old planes do get sent there. That said, the Greyhounds are all 1980's vintage and there aren't many of them. They are getting old and tired.
@@L0stEngineer I am aware of the Navy Reserve all 6 branches have a reserve element but only the air force and army have state based national guard units. The USCG has the auxillary which functions the same way.
I flew the COD for 3 years, it was a very good experience, although the aircraft is not particularly easy to fly. Landing on the boat was a challenge, every time you touched the power , the aircraft yawed due to the moment arm of the turboprops out on the wings. When it yawed you had to counter-act with rudder and aileron. Along with the usual pitch changes need to maintain the correct AOA, every control surface was moving a lot on final approach. Wingspan is 80 feet, the landing area is 100 feet wide, there was little room for error. Still a great memory.
@@Tom-zs6bb What I wrote, " When it yawed you had to counter-act with rudder and aileron." Yes, because the yaw would ruin your lineup and you needed rudder and aileron to get back on centerline.
@@frederf3227 I am aware, you needed all three inputs to correct. Primarily rudder and aileron to fix lineup, then pitch to control airspeed / AOA. Power was used to control rate of descent.
@@lnomolas3427 So you're referring to a side slip, where one intentionally crosses the controls to remain on and lined up with the centerline (never in fifty years of flying did I ever hear the issue described as "ruin your lineup", hm...)? And since sideslip maneuvers are are flown as a response to crosswinds, not the drastic power excursions that could cause torque and p-factor to be a problem, why would you be doing so? Especially when a carrier would be pointed into the wind, thus eliminating any significant crosswind component? In the event of an engine failure, yes, it may be necessary to hold a little bit of aileron to keep the wings level, but we're not talking about an engine failure, are we? And in that situation, or any other uncommanded yaw caused by asymmetrical thrust, that yaw is corrected with rudder, not aileron.
I was in the USMC in the 90s, was terrified of helicopters, they're one of the biggest statistics of Marine Corps deaths. Ospreys are a close second. I'd rather charge into combat than be on one of these birds.
I saw an osprey at the pacific airshow in gold coast about a week before the crash, i hope it wasnt the same pilot because he seemed like a very nice guy
The biggest problem with the osprey is their tendency to kill marines. Still in service which means that they have big money backers lobbying congress.
@@johns9652Look up Osprey crashes and casualties… retry dismal track record…they are quite difficult to fly, the design has not weathered the test of time, and the cost of upkeep on enormous vertical horizontal tilt rotors is almost prohibitive.
Right? Increasing procurement for an aircraft currently in production is win-win. On the other hand, how long before they expand the roll of the MQ-25 with a dry stores cargo capacity? Just pop a Thule box on top of that bad boy and you can send all those same-day Amazon orders for not much extra!
@@ZackSavage LOL When China & Russia do their military drills, there is no deaths, When Yanks and lapdogs do, many self inflicted friendly fire....is this the second incident with multiple fatalities?
@@chasx7062Do you really believe China and Russia are going to openly say their death rate in trainings? If USA has deaths, expect the same or more from other countries that invest that much money....
@@chasx7062I can dig up multiple training incidents for you, both in Russia and China. And let’s not act like China would make anything that makes them look bad be publicized in foreign media
I really do love the Osprey, I just adore those VTOL, rotation, and folding features. It seems like the perfect mix of a helicopter and plane, they just need to work on how much maintenance is needed.
@@aperson336It has the same safety record as other aircraft if not better. The only issue is it is expensive and doesn't have the benefit of auto rotation yet either do any fixed wing. Cannot wait to see a Valor rock the skies too! Or what the attack variant will look like as the Army currently has plans I guess to just use that for its next attack helicopter. (Or maybe the next generation of light scout helicopter which has not been selected. No tilt powdered aircraft are in competition in that though.)
@@DaMfProtagonistIt has the best safety record. Stop getting news from headlines and actually read into things before making such a confident statement. If you're going to hate on it. Hate on the cost, and the fact it burns wherever it lands or something. Outside of that it is one amazing machine. Especially for being first of its kind.
I crew'd both c2a and cmv22 in the navy and im with the program now as a civilian. You nailed it man! Appreciate you getting the details right! Also got to be involved with some of the missions and medevacs you mentioned.
Compare number of Osprey crashes to number of crashed by other US aircraft. Ospreys are one of the most reliable airframes we have; if they weren't, the president wouldn't use one.
@@pavarottiaardvark3431its not less reliable, people just think it is because it used to be a desthtrap way back 40 years ago when it was first made and we didn't properly train pilots on it. It was never the aircrafts fault, a congressional board of inquiry determined that, too.
@@kostakatsoulis2922 If you compare incident *rate* per hour flown, the Osprey is less safe than many other military airframes. Its rate of Class A incidents (event that results in fatality, permanent total disability, damage greater than or equal to $2.5 million and/or a destroyed aircraft) is higher than the F15, F16, F35, C130, C17 and A10. (source: USAF Safety Center) Also I don't think that a sitting president has ever flown in a V22
Previously I was in the assumption that the V-22 Osprey had shorter range then the C-2A Greyhound. But looking at the specifications it actually has slightly more ranged and has the added benefit of aerial refuelling which further exended its ragne. Also one of the other reasons why it was choosen is it can carry the F135 engine for the F-35 Lightning II.
@@clxwncrxwnThose issues are pretty much non-existant. Compare the number of Osprey crashes to the crash rates of other aircraft, you'll see which one is more reliable
I live in Amarillo Texas where the Osprey is made and tested; you can go to the airport and watch them all day long if you want. In the beginning though there were some design issues that caused crashes. But it still is neat to see them take off like a helicopter and then move like a plane.
Many airframes have this problem. The Blackhawk use to be known as the crashhawk in the late 70’s and early 80’s. People tend to forget. Even when we first went into the desert, there was a huge learning curve for operating aircraft in that environment for long periods of time with sand and dust getting pulled into the airframe and intakes. The osprey is a blast to fly in. Especially during the transition. Best thing that I can compare it to is a roller coaster that shoots you out instead of drop.
Yes they did have some design issues. I lost two good friends in the Quantico crash. Did some of the early work on the ring state vortex analysis at the Wilmington Delaware flight test facility. Problem is, for a CH-47 this will cause the nose to dip, increasing airspeed thus reducing the effect. For the Osprey, the wing dips, increasing the issue.
The design issues were never resolved as they are tied to the actual physics of tiltrotor operation. What happened was that the flight software got updated with additional limiters to prevent Ospreys from reaching the flight regimes that caused the earlier crashes. It's safer, yes, but tiltrotors are just riskier in general.
@@andrewsuryali8540You mean that the manufacturer lobbied congress and showered them with bribes to get them accepted into service despite their flaws. Did I say bribes? Sorry. I meant "campaign contributions."
The new CMVs at North Island have been showing themselves way more than the C-2s did. They've been doing a lot more inland flying, whereas the C-2s usually stayed over water on most training flights. So it does seem like those units will expand their mission ability quite a bit.
I flew on the V-22 Osprey when I was deployed to Iraq back in 2007. In helicopter mode they are freaking loud and will shake the entire house from half a mile away. but when its in plane mode, its freaking fast. we had a gunner with a weapons system on the back ramp when ours flew. Its a nice vehicle.
3. Total cargo volume. You can't fit the F35 engine into a C2, and you can hang any bulky equipment off the osprey as you do with your regular heli. 4. Versatility. Being able to do COD to most ships, not just the carriers, means you can avoid having an heli to bring the stuff from the carrier to an escorts ship that has an emergency need. Also, you can do COD on the LHA, that are already basically a carrier. 5. Commonality: you lose common logistics with the E-2, but you share platform with the marines MV-22. Mixed bag here. 6. Flight deck and garage space. An Osprey can take off and land while other operation are being performed, doesn't use a catapult, and it's smaller when completely folded in the hangar. It may be longer to take off and land tho, I'm not exactly sure here.
@@12gark F-35 engines fit in greyhounds, they are just a pain to load and unload. Underway replenishment is a thing, so a Merchant Marine ship can meet up with a carrier or LHD and transfer the engine via slinging it with a Seahawk helicopter.
Incredible what our military has and comes up with. I grew up in the 60's with my father being stationed out of Norfolk, VA. I loved going to the base and just watching the aircraft & ships. Thanks for this video it brings back many great memories & makes me miss being in the navy. Shalom
They have special refueling pods they can use. Will never have the quantity of fuel as a big plane but it is probably easier to match flight plans with almost identical planes
@CannedCoochie There wasn't any issue with the A-4, S-3, A-6, and A-7 carrying buddy pods. If anything, that gave them something to do in fleet air defense scenarios where they could refueling the Tomcats in the wing. They served their time and would've been ready for retirement anyways. The USN just elected to replace everything with the Super Hornet rather than develop a dedicated strike aircraft to save money (and because Dick Cheney hated Grumman and wanted them gone, so he canceled the A-6F and F-14D).
Pretty much any naval aircraft can be used as a tanker, the hose and drogue refueling system is housed in a drop tank shell. The old KA-6D tankers were just A-6's with a refuelling system on the centerline hard point and external fuel tanks on all the other hard points.
I wonder if the Coast Guard is looking into these for search and rescue missions. It can get there faster, operate for a longer duration, and carry more survivors and even have room for a medical trauma space.
@@ScampCamperif youre not holding onto something on the flight deck it will toss your ass down, seen it numerous time as an LSE. Cant imagine itd help in a sar situation
@@emiralamsyah9668 not sure if this sarcasm but even the V22 isn't new technology. It was developed and flown in 1989. It may have updated systems but its still 34 year old technology, at the earliest.
I remember watching footage of a C-130 repeatedly landing on an aircraft carrier all the way back in the sixties, about 60 years ago. I’m surprised they never developed a C-130 specifically designed to land on carriers after that. Seems like that was the plan, but someone killed the project and it was never revived. Maybe it should be re-examined.
@@Anubis78250 From the outset, the plan had only been to make deliveries to carriers, never to waste space on the flight deck. Landing, delivering supplies, then taking off again in mere minutes, if not seconds.
@@MyLateralThawts That would work except that it would require those C-130's to be stationed everywhere around the world that the carrier groups would be receiving from. Even if you move a small fleet of them around to service the carriers, you're still way over the cost of having an on-board option that stays with the group. Not to mention in those days it would also give away the carriers' destination.
Having to shut down flight operations while hosting a COD killed the Herc in a COD role. I love my Herc, but my girl's just too damn big to fit into the pattern of carrier flight operations.
3:50 I could not find any distances reported with these two incidents. Do you have a source for claiming that helicopters wouldn't have had the operational range to perform those missions?
Any news on that V-22 Osprey crash yesterday off the north coast of Australia? I hope it wasn't a design fault. The aircraft was carrying 23 and 3 US marines were killed, 8 hospitalised and the rest were unharmed.
Unfortunately with the bad publicity the osprey gets the public won’t care about the facts or the actual cause of any of the accidents involving the osprey, it’s judged based on what people see.
Strange timing for this video.... 3 Marines were just killed in a crash involving an MV-22B Osprey. It's worth noting, however... 20 aboard survived, but it sure feels like there have been a lot of accidents. After my time in the Marines... I finished my enlistment just as the MV-22 was being developed.
Compared to the crashes of other aircraft, the Osprey is a golden standard of reliability. Seriously, go look it up, everyone thinks these things are deathtraps but there's a reason that the president uses one as Marine 1.
@@kostakatsoulis2922 The V-22 marine 1 is only for support and POTUS never boards it. That’s why the V22s get the green livery instead of the Blue and White.
Osprey is a victim of media trying to smear expensive equipment. Like how every single minor issue on F-35 becomes headlines while it still is one of, if not the best in terms of reliability per flight hour. Same goes for Osprey it is statistically the safer than Black hawks etc.
I watched this video an hour ago and one crashed just today in Australia . I got the notification through 17 minutes ago. Eerie, rest in peace 3 US Marines
I worked on UH1Ys, AH1Ws and AH1Zs. When we needed to go to a FARP once we had the option of flying out on a CH53E, MV22 or C130 however we would be 1 day late if we took the C130. My OIC and all the higher ups refused to allow us to fly on any MV22s for safety reasons due to all the crashes that were happening at the time. And because we didnt want to get covered in hydraulic fluid (CH53E = Shitters), we took the C130. Mind you this was 2018. We also always had a saying that it was a miracle if you ever saw more than 2 MV22s flying at the same time because they were always "down" meaning they couldnt fly due to mechanical issues and needed maintenance but if you did see it you should probably go get a lottery ticket. Needless to say, the general consensus amongst maintainers at the time was that MV22s were horrible death traps.
The size of the props on the Osprey is amazing. They look like they would hit the deck if turned completly in the forward mode. I wonder what size they are. As usual, a very informative and interesting video.
The props are way too big. They have to take off vertically, then switch to horizontal flight. They look pretty wierd. like a 2 prop helo flying on its side.
@@KimonFrousios "VTOL is not optional." It is indeed optional, and in fact, necessary at certain weights. They regularly take off like fixed wing aircraft.
@@Tom-zs6bb The propellers are too big for fully horizontal operation while on the ground, so there is always a substantial vertical component to the force generated by the propellers, even if they do a rolling takeoff or landing. But granted, it is not strictly vertical operation.
The V22 really got a bad rep for no reason. Having less peacetime class a mishaps per 100,000 flight hours than any vertical lift aircraft in the DOD, but getting the most media attention.
By 2030 we will be hearing about the Osprey’s ridiculous maintenance cost and several more crashes (unfortunately and I hope not) I don’t know what is a better replacement for the Greyhound but I don’t believe it is the Osprey.
I'll await with you because that would be cool...but I won't hold my breath. I'm guessing it would take an order of magnitude improvement in jet technology to make something that can resist the entire force of gravity (hovering) without eating up its fuel load.
Back around 84 my father was a corpsman on the Nimitz during one of its Med cruises…. In the middle of the Ocean a sailor received horrible burns from a burst steam line…. A greyhound cat launch would have been fatal …. He might have stood a greater chance with an Osprey….
2 main problems with the Osprey: They can’t fly on one prop and they can’t autorotate. If one prop fails for whatever reason or they lose one engine and the linkage fails with the functioning engine, you will die.
You missed a critical detail, yes, the CMV-22 has the ability to carry cargo externally using a sling, but it can only do that over short distances. That has no use in the COD role. It is valuable for intra fleet cargo transfers. Dragging a very unaerodynamic pallet thru the air under your aircraft is a range killer.
Hearing the USS Abraham Lincoln mentioned makes me smile no matter where it hear it from. When my great grandparents moved out Victoria on Vancouver Island in BC, Canada I’d go visit them every year and spent most of my time by the sea, at the harbour or at museums, forts, and golf courses 😂 I’ve sat and watched the Abraham Lincoln do flight drills off the coast a few times, and once at night which was an absolute spectacle to behold. That carrier will always hold a special place in my heart with her big bright 72 always staying in my memory.
As a cv-22 CC this sounds awesome just hope that they will keep it in better condition like how the Airforce does with its CVs compared to the Marine MVs since these planes are one the least forgiving planes to fly if something goes wrong with them as is shown by the most recent MV crash. Prayers to the deceased families. 🙏
5:18 using the Osprey for A2A refuelling is really going to clock up the hours on the airframes. I think this has also really made life hard on the F/A-18's. While it's great to have the option if you need it, most refueling should be in planes as cheap as possible to run, which I really doubt is the Osprey.
The tanker mission used to be filled by S-3A Vikings, but those were retired in 2009. Now E/F models of super hornets do it. The Osprey can tank from anyone who has a hose and drogue.
I doubt osprey will be used for most of those task, flight hour being the problem. I see handful of Osprey retain there for special need, such as the transportation of the injured. But things will gradually get replaced by drone.
Honestly, I'm reading all the crash reports, and it's not as bad as I was anticipating. No crash is good, but for the incredible complexity and novel flying envelope, it's done a lot better than even my younger criticism of it anticipated.
@@erinrodriguez3531which is what the reformers want you to call it. Along with the thousands of online trolls China and Russia employs. It actually has a decent safety record, above that of the sea stallion, Blackhawk, Apache and others. Add in its difficult mission platforms and it’s completely new tech one could call it impressive. But always remember, there are many people out there with a vested interest in getting people to believe a certain narrative.
The C2 is a beautiful aircraft. It was our main source of mail delivery and standard personnel transfer. When i was on GITMO it was the only way back to the carrier.
From what your saying, it sounds like the Grayhound is perfect for normal fly-in replenishment operations with the Osprey being used for special cases, freeing them up for other operations.
Well no, he actually pointed out that the Grayhound is an old outdated system that while a good workhorse and a slightly higher load capacity, is not as flexible and thus not as cost savings to keep. The video flat out stated the Osprey makes up for its smaller load capacity with the ability to lift externally and its VTOL capabilities. It is also able to refuel which means it has a greater range. Basically everything this video said supports replacing the greyhound instead of spending the money to maintain two separate crafts., because the Osprey is literally the better choice.
Did you even watch the video? The only thing the Osprey can't do is is carry 10000lbs internally but it is still big enough to carry a single engine for any fixed wing or rotory wing aircraft which is the biggest thing the C-2 carries, so the extra 4ooo is kinda moot.
@@onegemini420 Just because it is old does not mean it is not doing the job. Nothing has changed in the replenishment role that makes the Greyhound obsolete. Almost double is not 'slightly', and I highly doubt the complexity of the osprey is going to mean cost savings over a conventional turboprop. I don't think refuelling is as big a deal as is made out, because it is not new tech or particularly hard, and if it had significant value it would have been added at some point in the 60 years. External loads are sort of useful, but I don't see anybody doing much plane mode flying if they have one. If they did really need an Osprey for a particular load, they could ask the marines at a stretch anyway, but external loads would be far better off from a dedicated helicopter. Saying that the VTOL 'made up for' the cargo is misleading, because the two are unrelated. What this decision tells you is that they could manage fine with a smaller cargo capacity. It was not a deal breaker. If it couldn't do the job they needed it for then it wouldn't matter if it could dance, it would be rejected. To understand this decision it might be better to think of it as replacing search and rescue, and realising that it can also just do replenishment. The greyhound did it's job just great, but you simply don't need it if you have Ospreys anyway. If a pilot ejects injured 50km from the carrier, they have to wait for a heli to pick them up, take them back to the carrier, then get catapulted in a Greyhound, then get from the airport to hospital. An Osprey could get there faster than the heli, and go straight to land in the hospital carpark if required. Using space on the carrier for a less capable aircraft to 'free up' a more capable one misses the fact that space is the premium, not the aircraft.
@@agsystems8220the greyhound is obsolete in the fact it cannot carrier the F-35s massive F135 engine and this is the main reason the CV-22 is being used to replace the C-2. It's the only thing with the range and ability to bring a vital component to the carrier.
I love this channel it explains everything do essily, and makes it sound all enteraining, and a lot of what he says is right unlike other channels,im not saying he never makes mistakes,its just he makes less of them than other people with less enteraining videos,i just would wish if this channel uploaded every 2-3 days
I was with VRC40 in Norfolk 99-01 with the shore detachment. I thought it was really cool working on the C-2's. I was a structure and hydraulic mechanic, AMS and then merged with AMH to just become AM. Something interesting about the engines... They used the Allison T-56 which was used on the E-2 as well as the C-130. It was also used in the P-3 Orion which was the next aircraft I worked with at VP-16 in Jacksonville. About VRC-40 though, not long after I went to Jacksonville, All Hands magazine did an article about them and their mission and they flew the film crew and stars for Tears of the Sun out to a carrier for filming. I still have that magazine. They have pics with Bruce Willis and I think Tom Skerritt in the COD wearing flight deck helmets, also called cranials.
I Can see the Osprey being a game-changer for frigates. We usually Unreped but occasionally Vertreped with a helo nearly as big as we were. Range was an issue if we were independent streaming though.
I don't see the V-22 being safe at all, and its final approval was motivated by 2 wars that needed solutions that it almost fit, but it has no emergency landing ability other than crashing. I know a fixed wing replacement is being worked on that will have longer legs than the C2A Greyhound and V-22 Osprey and greater cargo capabilities. Its not pretty, but its capable.
It is $ Dollars per flight hour that make an aircraft a legend, not just capability. So many super aircraft have come and gone because the just cost to much to keep flying.
I'd think the C-2 isn't going away just yet because it's been long proven and has lower operational costs. If they're replacing it, they'll need something with better turn-around on flight hours than the rotor-wing craft too. Might see a more efficient aircraft with high-bypass ducted fan jets in the works taking on the role to make up for limited availability of the Osprey variant.
The C-2s are being replaced because they were all built in the 80s and are reaching the end of their viable service life due to strain on the airframe. Not everything is about being "rugged" and "reliable".
I find it interesting that even though we've heard over the years how bothersome the Osprey can be because of it's high complexity, they're still going with it. That alone speaks to it's capabilities
@@jbird6609that's clealy misinfo since its history is not "unsafe". If that's the case President should be banned from flying in black hawks, or any other helicopter in service. Osprey has better reliability per statistics than any of them.
what is the annual maintenance and operational costs for each I suspect that the Osprety is yet another hugely expensive tech to operate and a hangar queen
Navy Vet "out less than a year" that worked on C-2 "O-Level", and V-22 "I-Level". Ground forces hate it because the engines get too much in the intake like sand and dirt. In theory, this all works well for the Navy. The C-2 greyhound is always loaded with just enough weight to be able to fly with only 1 engine. The V-22 has what is like a "Limited slip differential" gearbox so it can also fly with one engine if need be. The biggest problem is that, that feature is having issues and can even start to activate when it shouldn't, sending the aircraft into a violent shake and things fall apart. The Military has already dumped too much money into the program to let it fail. It'll always be labeled "pilot error" or "technical problems" because they wont admit the gearbox issue, even though the platform keeps getting grounded in different branches of service "last year was the air force". the pilots i know say they don't want to fly those death traps, and i trust them over any reporter that has never been in the seat. I think we're at 4 development crashes with 30 deaths, and in service "2007" with 11 crashes now with about 24 deaths now. 2 combat with "unknown" causes, and the rest is "pilot error" and "technical problems".
I saw one on approach and transitioning for landing in an airport in my town in the south of france, I gotta admit that thing looks amazing. I'm shocked to hear they don't plan to order more of those though
From what I've gathered online its is very demanding on maintenance and therefore availability is lower than what was hoped for. One would expect, that the lessons learned from the V-280 Valor would be put to use in a new marine / naval tilt rotor design.
It's the most recent crash since last year's crash in June and the one before it in March...but none before that since 2017. Seven aircraft in Eight years, since 2015. How many other type/model/series rotorcraft of similar design have crashed in the same time period? H-60s with nine aircraft lost. That's the closest. You don't want to hear the UH-1 numbers, but there are SO many variations and airframes out there... It's kind of an apples to uglier apples comparison since there aren't any other tiltrotor aircraft manufactured on the same scale and distribution, but the rotary configuration is the most dangerous flight regime, so helicopters are comparable. I sincerely hope they never have an issue with the CH-53K. In this day and age, I can already hear the whining.
What happens when Osprey is grounded due to it's known mechanical problems? Osprey: Too damn complex, maintenance hog, and UNRELIABLE. Thus it would be wise to not rely on it...
@@DeltaEntropy when the propellers have as big of a surface area as other planes, Osprey profile don't matter no more, those propellers are whipping up a typhoon every time they spin. Take it from me, someone who actually flew in an osprey (marine). Tho had to drop out less than a year into the program cos of a severe back injury
The Opsrey is my favorite, it's challenging landing the thing in Microsoft flight simulator, I can't tell you how many times I slammed it on the floor or used too much power.
A lot of it is done by feel, like racing in a car. Totally lost in a simulation. Try thinking ahead a full 5 or 10 seconds instead of right now..... In the flying simulation, anyway. Sacrifice some of your awareness for better flight but you should be able to balance it out.
I remember landing on a carrier in a Greyhound. I thought my stomach was going to fly out my mouth when that plane hit the arresting cable and we went from 90 knots to 0 in a couple of seconds.
You should try riding a Rollercoaster some day.
@@juri_xiii9977 Did. No comparison.
@@juri_xiii9977 wow, what a terrible comment. Ignorance abounds
You should try joining the navy some day ;)@@juri_xiii9977
That sounds like it was a fun experience to get to fly on a naval aircraft like that. Also getting to see a carrier, but the landing sounds awful😂. I have a fairly strong stomach but I would die if I experienced that. Also which carrier was it? If you don’t mind me asking.
The CMV-22 is capable of carrying the F-35C engine internally while the C-2 cannot. It also can land on ships other than aircraft carriers.
Wrong answer. The F-35C fit inside the C-2A, but require a special frame for easy load and uinloading.
The idea of using a helicopter or an aircraft to fly around another fixed-wing aircraft seems like the most self-defeating purposeless bulshit I've ever heard in the military. And that's saying something. XD
@@Mygg_Jeagerreread the comment bud
From Vietnam we had helicopters cranes built for special lifts. Well behold DOD got rid of them.
@@melheinrich5438 what?
I was on the Vinson underway mentioned in the video. We almost exclusively had Ospreys on that deployment. I also left on one to escort someone who had a medical issue. It was definitely a much more comfortable ride than a Greyhound. Bonus, I didn't die.
You missed the tailhook. And all our DIV enjoy the rid with the C-2. 🙂
I’m way too scared to step foot on an Osprey. I’ll take the article 92 if I was ever told to get on one.
@RizaldoMullings that was one incident. Overall, it's one of the safest aircraft in service
@@Krispymans there are over ten v-22 crashes
@@RizaldoMullings the UH60 black hawk had 16 from 1981-1984 alone, with a total of 390 as of this year.
RIP to those who lost their lives in todays osprey crash on exercise in Australia.
Hopefully they add a computer to help the pilots keep it stable
@@coty.ott0359 The Ospreys have always had computer stability augmentation systems.
@@coty.ott0359wait the osprey doesn’t have that
i'm a little baffled by the title in all honesty. even before the most recent crash they have a well established name and reputatation as "the widowmaker"
@@MaticTheProto I’m sure they do but not the level it needs, for example there’s this prototype jet that Russia made the design for maneuverability is probably the best but it is literally uncontrollable with out a computer doing all the work to keep it from crashing so it was only ever a prototype
“Urgent deliveries” shows a pallet of monster getting unloaded 😂
the important stuff!!
I've worked with MV-22s. They're big, noisy, and in my opinion kind of ugly, but boy can they pull a lot of weight very quickly. One thing worth noting is that they perform better over water than they do over land, as their engines have been known to get damaged by dust and sand, but seem to have no problem with salt water.
Thanks for your service sir.
Thank you for your service!
Thank you for your comment!
yes, they kick up a LOT OF DUST.
that was in the evaluation before they bought them.
F35 is facing an even greater problem of burning the regular landing pads.
I think the whole family of V22s are beautiful aircraft and, regardless of their hardiness, are a valuable asset to our military logistics. I live right outside Keesler AFB and see them fly around a few times a year. Recently I got to see a few do some touch and go landings during an airshow and again during a family fun day event at the marina off the north side of the runway.
You forgot the biggest reason that they're switching to CMV-22 Ospreys for carrier onboard delivery. Unlike the F-18, the F-35's engines are too wide to fit inside the C-2 greyhound. The V-22 was designed as a heavy helicopter assault transport to carry troops and small vehicles, so it has a much larger cargo volume that can take the F-135 engine.
This right here is the correct answer. Compared to the F414 engines the F135 engine is MASSIVE. In the F404 to replace afterburner parts I have to lay down and crawl to get into the A/B duct. The F135 I could do crouched walk with no issues.
@lhommeaudacieux That's because it kind of is an engine with wings. how else do you think they get it to takeoff vertically? Just look at the Harrier.
You've never been in either have you? The C-2A has a much bigger internal volume. The issue is that the C-2A has had many accidents and age related issues so it's heavily derated and C.G. limited from its original specs. The old girl just can't handle the weight like a V-22 can. Secondly, the v-22 team was allowed to disassemble the F-135 engine to make it fit.
@@L0stEngineer I thought the main issue was the giant fan diameter of the F135 even relatively disassembled. On the other hand, you're right that I've never been in any of these planes.
@@thamiordragonheart8682 and the storage case for the engine too... The thing is the V-22 support and fielding team were very audacious and they found a way to make the engine fit. It's very likely they will get more airframes on the order and get more missions for their program.
I suspect the Greyhounds will be kept in a semi ready status among Navy National Guard units for a number of years. Resupply is one of those areas that seems so simple. It is like a paper cut that gets infected- and kills the entire body. It's not a big deal- until it is. So just in case the Navy gets in over its head, the Greyhounds will be waiting in the wings.
Ask the Moscova if resupply and maintenance are important. You can't run critical systems if you don't have the parts. It's rather like losing the kingdom for want of a nail.
I was unaware the US had a Navy National Guard. I mean the USCG pretty much has that covered
The Navy has a Navy reserve and yes some of the old planes do get sent there. That said, the Greyhounds are all 1980's vintage and there aren't many of them. They are getting old and tired.
@@L0stEngineer I am aware of the Navy Reserve all 6 branches have a reserve element but only the air force and army have state based national guard units. The USCG has the auxillary which functions the same way.
@@L0stEngineerthat’s not how that works at all.
@@PATRIOT_Acronym69420 I would appreciate the enlightenment.
I flew the COD for 3 years, it was a very good experience, although the aircraft is not particularly easy to fly. Landing on the boat was a challenge, every time you touched the power , the aircraft yawed due to the moment arm of the turboprops out on the wings. When it yawed you had to counter-act with rudder and aileron. Along with the usual pitch changes need to maintain the correct AOA, every control surface was moving a lot on final approach. Wingspan is 80 feet, the landing area is 100 feet wide, there was little room for error. Still a great memory.
You used aileron to counter yaw?
The moments due to thrust and rudder aren't purely in the yaw axis.
@@Tom-zs6bb What I wrote, " When it yawed you had to counter-act with rudder and aileron." Yes, because the yaw would ruin your lineup and you needed rudder and aileron to get back on centerline.
@@frederf3227 I am aware, you needed all three inputs to correct. Primarily rudder and aileron to fix lineup, then pitch to control airspeed / AOA. Power was used to control rate of descent.
@@lnomolas3427 So you're referring to a side slip, where one intentionally crosses the controls to remain on and lined up with the centerline (never in fifty years of flying did I ever hear the issue described as "ruin your lineup", hm...)?
And since sideslip maneuvers are are flown as a response to crosswinds, not the drastic power excursions that could cause torque and p-factor to be a problem, why would you be doing so? Especially when a carrier would be pointed into the wind, thus eliminating any significant crosswind component?
In the event of an engine failure, yes, it may be necessary to hold a little bit of aileron to keep the wings level, but we're not talking about an engine failure, are we? And in that situation, or any other uncommanded yaw caused by asymmetrical thrust, that yaw is corrected with rudder, not aileron.
Just had one crash off Darwin, Australia during a multi country training exercise. Reports of injuries and missing people.
3x dead, all USMC onboard, 20x injured I believe
I was in the USMC in the 90s, was terrified of helicopters, they're one of the biggest statistics of Marine Corps deaths. Ospreys are a close second. I'd rather charge into combat than be on one of these birds.
I saw an osprey at the pacific airshow in gold coast about a week before the crash, i hope it wasnt the same pilot because he seemed like a very nice guy
The biggest problem with the osprey is their tendency to kill marines. Still in service which means that they have big money backers lobbying congress.
@@johns9652Look up Osprey crashes and casualties…
retry dismal track record…they are quite difficult to fly, the design has not weathered the test of time, and the cost of upkeep on enormous vertical horizontal tilt rotors is almost prohibitive.
I like that the main problem is that its too good and they dont have enough of them. Not a bad problem to have.
may be when the price tag is as high as a f35...
Right? Increasing procurement for an aircraft currently in production is win-win. On the other hand, how long before they expand the roll of the MQ-25 with a dry stores cargo capacity? Just pop a Thule box on top of that bad boy and you can send all those same-day Amazon orders for not much extra!
Except only the marines have ospreys because they are the only ones brave enough (or stupid) to use them
@@hokamam5516depends on the variant
Except it's not has high as the F-35. Not even close.@@hokamam5516
The Osprey can land on almost any platform and it’s range in open sea is crazy. Giving it access to any Naval Vessels at sea. That’s a game changer!
but what's its death rate so far?
@@chasx7062 Far lower than you seem to think. Do some research instead of brainlessly believing every narrative tossed your way.
@@ZackSavage LOL When China & Russia do their military drills, there is no deaths, When Yanks and lapdogs do, many self inflicted friendly fire....is this the second incident with multiple fatalities?
@@chasx7062Do you really believe China and Russia are going to openly say their death rate in trainings? If USA has deaths, expect the same or more from other countries that invest that much money....
@@chasx7062I can dig up multiple training incidents for you, both in Russia and China. And let’s not act like China would make anything that makes them look bad be publicized in foreign media
I really do love the Osprey, I just adore those VTOL, rotation, and folding features. It seems like the perfect mix of a helicopter and plane, they just need to work on how much maintenance is needed.
It is also one of my favorite planes, in concept, but the amount of flaws and down right how dangerous it is, makes it impractical
@@aperson336 and yet it has the best safety record of any rotary craft USMC has.
Why would you love a death trap?
@@aperson336It has the same safety record as other aircraft if not better.
The only issue is it is expensive and doesn't have the benefit of auto rotation yet either do any fixed wing.
Cannot wait to see a Valor rock the skies too! Or what the attack variant will look like as the Army currently has plans I guess to just use that for its next attack helicopter. (Or maybe the next generation of light scout helicopter which has not been selected. No tilt powdered aircraft are in competition in that though.)
@@DaMfProtagonistIt has the best safety record.
Stop getting news from headlines and actually read into things before making such a confident statement.
If you're going to hate on it. Hate on the cost, and the fact it burns wherever it lands or something.
Outside of that it is one amazing machine. Especially for being first of its kind.
I crew'd both c2a and cmv22 in the navy and im with the program now as a civilian. You nailed it man! Appreciate you getting the details right! Also got to be involved with some of the missions and medevacs you mentioned.
Nice timing on this video, as 3 marines just lost their life thanks to another Osprey deathtrap
Such is life in a rotorcraft, even if optional.
But keep repeating fuddlore
^ This. I get why the Osprey is essential in some situations. Nut replacing the Greyhound with a less safe aircraft seems unnecessary.
Compare number of Osprey crashes to number of crashed by other US aircraft. Ospreys are one of the most reliable airframes we have; if they weren't, the president wouldn't use one.
@@pavarottiaardvark3431its not less reliable, people just think it is because it used to be a desthtrap way back 40 years ago when it was first made and we didn't properly train pilots on it. It was never the aircrafts fault, a congressional board of inquiry determined that, too.
@@kostakatsoulis2922 If you compare incident *rate* per hour flown, the Osprey is less safe than many other military airframes.
Its rate of Class A incidents (event that results in fatality, permanent total disability, damage greater than or equal to $2.5 million and/or a destroyed aircraft) is higher than the F15, F16, F35, C130, C17 and A10.
(source: USAF Safety Center)
Also I don't think that a sitting president has ever flown in a V22
Previously I was in the assumption that the V-22 Osprey had shorter range then the C-2A Greyhound. But looking at the specifications it actually has slightly more ranged and has the added benefit of aerial refuelling which further exended its ragne. Also one of the other reasons why it was choosen is it can carry the F135 engine for the F-35 Lightning II.
4:13 Only this Navy version - The CMV-22b - has the expanded fuel capacity to make it able to take the Greyhound's job
The best part of the CMV-22 is that it eliminates a leg of the supply chain by landing on smaller ships directly.
Yeah but the Vtol lift capability has resulted in more than a few accidents unless they ironed out those issues.
@@clxwncrxwnthey ironed them in the V280 valor
@@clxwncrxwnThose issues are pretty much non-existant. Compare the number of Osprey crashes to the crash rates of other aircraft, you'll see which one is more reliable
@@Pierrot9315that’s yet to be verified.
@@clxwncrxwn To what issues do you refer?
I live in Amarillo Texas where the Osprey is made and tested; you can go to the airport and watch them all day long if you want. In the beginning though there were some design issues that caused crashes. But it still is neat to see them take off like a helicopter and then move like a plane.
Many airframes have this problem. The Blackhawk use to be known as the crashhawk in the late 70’s and early 80’s. People tend to forget. Even when we first went into the desert, there was a huge learning curve for operating aircraft in that environment for long periods of time with sand and dust getting pulled into the airframe and intakes. The osprey is a blast to fly in. Especially during the transition. Best thing that I can compare it to is a roller coaster that shoots you out instead of drop.
I often see them fly pretty low over I-40 when driving through amarillo, it's fun
Yes they did have some design issues. I lost two good friends in the Quantico crash. Did some of the early work on the ring state vortex analysis at the Wilmington Delaware flight test facility. Problem is, for a CH-47 this will cause the nose to dip, increasing airspeed thus reducing the effect. For the Osprey, the wing dips, increasing the issue.
The design issues were never resolved as they are tied to the actual physics of tiltrotor operation. What happened was that the flight software got updated with additional limiters to prevent Ospreys from reaching the flight regimes that caused the earlier crashes. It's safer, yes, but tiltrotors are just riskier in general.
@@andrewsuryali8540You mean that the manufacturer lobbied congress and showered them with bribes to get them accepted into service despite their flaws. Did I say bribes? Sorry. I meant "campaign contributions."
The new CMVs at North Island have been showing themselves way more than the C-2s did. They've been doing a lot more inland flying, whereas the C-2s usually stayed over water on most training flights. So it does seem like those units will expand their mission ability quite a bit.
I flew on the V-22 Osprey when I was deployed to Iraq back in 2007. In helicopter mode they are freaking loud and will shake the entire house from half a mile away. but when its in plane mode, its freaking fast. we had a gunner with a weapons system on the back ramp when ours flew. Its a nice vehicle.
Lots a talk, but back to the core role as a transport.
1. Total cargo weight
2. Cost per hour
This piece is an Osprey ad 😂🎉
What would you suggest?
3. Total cargo volume. You can't fit the F35 engine into a C2, and you can hang any bulky equipment off the osprey as you do with your regular heli.
4. Versatility. Being able to do COD to most ships, not just the carriers, means you can avoid having an heli to bring the stuff from the carrier to an escorts ship that has an emergency need. Also, you can do COD on the LHA, that are already basically a carrier.
5. Commonality: you lose common logistics with the E-2, but you share platform with the marines MV-22. Mixed bag here.
6. Flight deck and garage space. An Osprey can take off and land while other operation are being performed, doesn't use a catapult, and it's smaller when completely folded in the hangar. It may be longer to take off and land tho, I'm not exactly sure here.
@@12gark F-35 engines fit in greyhounds, they are just a pain to load and unload. Underway replenishment is a thing, so a Merchant Marine ship can meet up with a carrier or LHD and transfer the engine via slinging it with a Seahawk helicopter.
Incredible what our military has and comes up with. I grew up in the 60's with my father being stationed out of Norfolk, VA. I loved going to the base and just watching the aircraft & ships. Thanks for this video it brings back many great memories & makes me miss being in the navy. Shalom
I never knew the F18 was serving as an aerial refueling platform, really ingenious to use a strike craft to refuel other strike craft
They have special refueling pods they can use. Will never have the quantity of fuel as a big plane but it is probably easier to match flight plans with almost identical planes
I think they started using superhornets for this task is because the Viking and Prowler got phased out.
@CannedCoochie There wasn't any issue with the A-4, S-3, A-6, and A-7 carrying buddy pods. If anything, that gave them something to do in fleet air defense scenarios where they could refueling the Tomcats in the wing. They served their time and would've been ready for retirement anyways. The USN just elected to replace everything with the Super Hornet rather than develop a dedicated strike aircraft to save money (and because Dick Cheney hated Grumman and wanted them gone, so he canceled the A-6F and F-14D).
Superhornet and its cousins have been doing everything for a while
Pretty much any naval aircraft can be used as a tanker, the hose and drogue refueling system is housed in a drop tank shell. The old KA-6D tankers were just A-6's with a refuelling system on the centerline hard point and external fuel tanks on all the other hard points.
I wonder if the Coast Guard is looking into these for search and rescue missions. It can get there faster, operate for a longer duration, and carry more survivors and even have room for a medical trauma space.
Our down wash is too much for regular SAR missions. It’s also harder to hoist.
@@skorea2131 more downwash than a copter?
@@ScampCamperI would think yeah because it’s bigger, heavier, and has 2 rotors.
@@ScampCamperif youre not holding onto something on the flight deck it will toss your ass down, seen it numerous time as an LSE. Cant imagine itd help in a sar situation
"Only vital supplies"
*shows unloading a pallet of Monster*
There is nothing like coming home on a Friday, knowing the weekend is ahead, and watching a Not What You Think video. Always amazing.
1 plane with 2 functions. As a fixed wing, also a rotary wing. Latest technology. Amazing
it only uses the rotary wing function for takeoff and landings where runway space is at a minimum and it can perform VTOL operations
Not latest technology. The idea of a tilt rotor aircraft goes back to 1953 and the Bell XV3
@@michaelkendall662 thank you.
@@JosephDawson1986 😯 longtime research, right ?
Thank you.
@@emiralamsyah9668 not sure if this sarcasm but even the V22 isn't new technology. It was developed and flown in 1989. It may have updated systems but its still 34 year old technology, at the earliest.
I remember watching footage of a C-130 repeatedly landing on an aircraft carrier all the way back in the sixties, about 60 years ago. I’m surprised they never developed a C-130 specifically designed to land on carriers after that. Seems like that was the plan, but someone killed the project and it was never revived. Maybe it should be re-examined.
Problem is the C-130 is more than ten feet taller than the hangar. So any C-130 becomes a permanent guest on the flight deck until departure.
@@Anubis78250 From the outset, the plan had only been to make deliveries to carriers, never to waste space on the flight deck. Landing, delivering supplies, then taking off again in mere minutes, if not seconds.
@@MyLateralThawts That would work except that it would require those C-130's to be stationed everywhere around the world that the carrier groups would be receiving from. Even if you move a small fleet of them around to service the carriers, you're still way over the cost of having an on-board option that stays with the group. Not to mention in those days it would also give away the carriers' destination.
Having to shut down flight operations while hosting a COD killed the Herc in a COD role. I love my Herc, but my girl's just too damn big to fit into the pattern of carrier flight operations.
3:50 I could not find any distances reported with these two incidents. Do you have a source for claiming that helicopters wouldn't have had the operational range to perform those missions?
The monster cases at 1:24 is the most military thing ever
How unfortunately timed. You published this right before an US Marine Osprey crashed in Australia leaving 3 dead.
:x
And yet, this thing used to be called the 'Widowmaker' due to some crashes, here she is being the all rounder!
Any news on that V-22 Osprey crash yesterday off the north coast of Australia? I hope it wasn't a design fault. The aircraft was carrying 23 and 3 US marines were killed, 8 hospitalised and the rest were unharmed.
Pilot error….again.
One day later. "Boeing MV-22B Osprey: Deadly track record of aircraft that crashed in NT killing US Marines"
Actually, best safety record of any US helicopter.
No chance in hell I'd get inside an Osprey. If I were still active duty, I'd take a court martial & prison time before getting inside one.
Unfortunately with the bad publicity the osprey gets the public won’t care about the facts or the actual cause of any of the accidents involving the osprey, it’s judged based on what people see.
Strange timing for this video.... 3 Marines were just killed in a crash involving an MV-22B Osprey. It's worth noting, however... 20 aboard survived, but it sure feels like there have been a lot of accidents. After my time in the Marines... I finished my enlistment just as the MV-22 was being developed.
Compared to the crashes of other aircraft, the Osprey is a golden standard of reliability. Seriously, go look it up, everyone thinks these things are deathtraps but there's a reason that the president uses one as Marine 1.
@@kostakatsoulis2922 The V-22 marine 1 is only for support and POTUS never boards it. That’s why the V22s get the green livery instead of the Blue and White.
Osprey is a victim of media trying to smear expensive equipment. Like how every single minor issue on F-35 becomes headlines while it still is one of, if not the best in terms of reliability per flight hour.
Same goes for Osprey it is statistically the safer than Black hawks etc.
@@kostakatsoulis2922 The president does not fly on the MV-22. It's a support aircraft in HMX-1. Not a "white top".
@@zf4hp24 yeah sorry I was thinking of something else
I watched this video an hour ago and one crashed just today in Australia . I got the notification through 17 minutes ago. Eerie, rest in peace 3 US Marines
Glad to see the Osprey got issues worked out.
I worked on UH1Ys, AH1Ws and AH1Zs. When we needed to go to a FARP once we had the option of flying out on a CH53E, MV22 or C130 however we would be 1 day late if we took the C130. My OIC and all the higher ups refused to allow us to fly on any MV22s for safety reasons due to all the crashes that were happening at the time. And because we didnt want to get covered in hydraulic fluid (CH53E = Shitters), we took the C130. Mind you this was 2018. We also always had a saying that it was a miracle if you ever saw more than 2 MV22s flying at the same time because they were always "down" meaning they couldnt fly due to mechanical issues and needed maintenance but if you did see it you should probably go get a lottery ticket. Needless to say, the general consensus amongst maintainers at the time was that MV22s were horrible death traps.
Your videos are always so interestting, I always learn so much from them
The size of the props on the Osprey is amazing. They look like they would hit the deck if turned completly in the forward mode. I wonder what size they are. As usual, a very informative and interesting video.
They absolutely would hit the deck if tilted forward while near the ground. VTOL is not optional.
The props are way too big. They have to take off vertically, then switch to horizontal flight. They look pretty wierd. like a 2 prop helo flying on its side.
@@KimonFrousios It is, you can take-off as an STOL
@@KimonFrousios "VTOL is not optional."
It is indeed optional, and in fact, necessary at certain weights. They regularly take off like fixed wing aircraft.
@@Tom-zs6bb The propellers are too big for fully horizontal operation while on the ground, so there is always a substantial vertical component to the force generated by the propellers, even if they do a rolling takeoff or landing. But granted, it is not strictly vertical operation.
The V22 really got a bad rep for no reason. Having less peacetime class a mishaps per 100,000 flight hours than any vertical lift aircraft in the DOD, but getting the most media attention.
By 2030 we will be hearing about the Osprey’s ridiculous maintenance cost and several more crashes (unfortunately and I hope not) I don’t know what is a better replacement for the Greyhound but I don’t believe it is the Osprey.
Seeing an Osprey deploy itself for duty is so AWESOME!! 🤩
Man those vertibirds are pretty, I can't wait to see the new one with the attack configuration. I'm just waiting on a jet version now. 👍
I'll await with you because that would be cool...but I won't hold my breath. I'm guessing it would take an order of magnitude improvement in jet technology to make something that can resist the entire force of gravity (hovering) without eating up its fuel load.
HSVTOL
@@mkvv5687 well... I will wait for a SHIELD Quinjet (Avengers 1 / Agents of Shield)...
Back around 84 my father was a corpsman on the Nimitz during one of its Med cruises…. In the middle of the Ocean a sailor received horrible burns from a burst steam line…. A greyhound cat launch would have been fatal …. He might have stood a greater chance with an Osprey….
how would a cat launch be fatal?
Wasn't there a crash today or yesterday with an Osprey?
seems like it happens all the time
@@KO-sx9uy let osprey for the families
2 main problems with the Osprey: They can’t fly on one prop and they can’t autorotate. If one prop fails for whatever reason or they lose one engine and the linkage fails with the functioning engine, you will die.
You say the Pentagon is not going to order more Ospreys. Could that be because the replacement for the Osprey, the Valor has just been approved?
The US sadly lost an Osprey in Darwin, Australia today, with 3 crew dying.
3 dead and 20 injured in a osprey crash in Australia just this week
An Osprey just crashed in Australia, killing 3 US marines and injury several others.
You missed a critical detail, yes, the CMV-22 has the ability to carry cargo externally using a sling, but it can only do that over short distances. That has no use in the COD role. It is valuable for intra fleet cargo transfers.
Dragging a very unaerodynamic pallet thru the air under your aircraft is a range killer.
This video aged beautifully
This didn't age well considering that 3 marines were killed and 20 injured in a weekend osprey crash in Australia.
Well, another Osprey just went down in Australia
I served on board three ships. All three had great medical facilities on board. The need to transport a patient should be a rarity.
I can't imagine how you could have a giant warship that might be in .... A War, and not have a super well equipped hospital on board.
Hearing the USS Abraham Lincoln mentioned makes me smile no matter where it hear it from. When my great grandparents moved out Victoria on Vancouver Island in BC, Canada I’d go visit them every year and spent most of my time by the sea, at the harbour or at museums, forts, and golf courses 😂 I’ve sat and watched the Abraham Lincoln do flight drills off the coast a few times, and once at night which was an absolute spectacle to behold. That carrier will always hold a special place in my heart with her big bright 72 always staying in my memory.
As a cv-22 CC this sounds awesome just hope that they will keep it in better condition like how the Airforce does with its CVs compared to the Marine MVs since these planes are one the least forgiving planes to fly if something goes wrong with them as is shown by the most recent MV crash. Prayers to the deceased families. 🙏
5:18 using the Osprey for A2A refuelling is really going to clock up the hours on the airframes. I think this has also really made life hard on the F/A-18's. While it's great to have the option if you need it, most refueling should be in planes as cheap as possible to run, which I really doubt is the Osprey.
Isn’t their a new carrier based drone made for mid air refuelling carrier wings.
The tanker mission used to be filled by S-3A Vikings, but those were retired in 2009. Now E/F models of super hornets do it. The Osprey can tank from anyone who has a hose and drogue.
The S-3 is my favourite Navy aircraft. I don’t know why but it just like it design.
I doubt osprey will be used for most of those task, flight hour being the problem.
I see handful of Osprey retain there for special need, such as the transportation of the injured.
But things will gradually get replaced by drone.
@@muskaos A-6s used to refuel also.
No way you made an entire video about the osprey without mentioning its absolutely abysmal safety record.
Honestly, I'm reading all the crash reports, and it's not as bad as I was anticipating.
No crash is good, but for the incredible complexity and novel flying envelope, it's done a lot better than even my younger criticism of it anticipated.
One just crashed today in Australia, 3 Marines died. We know then as flying coffins
@@erinrodriguez3531which is what the reformers want you to call it. Along with the thousands of online trolls China and Russia employs. It actually has a decent safety record, above that of the sea stallion, Blackhawk, Apache and others. Add in its difficult mission platforms and it’s completely new tech one could call it impressive. But always remember, there are many people out there with a vested interest in getting people to believe a certain narrative.
Compared to the Greyhound, the Osprey’s hourly operating costs are many times greater.
It *better* have significant advantages.
The C2 is a beautiful aircraft. It was our main source of mail delivery and standard personnel transfer. When i was on GITMO it was the only way back to the carrier.
From what your saying, it sounds like the Grayhound is perfect for normal fly-in replenishment operations with the Osprey being used for special cases, freeing them up for other operations.
The greyhounds are getting long in the tooth though, and need replacing.
Well no, he actually pointed out that the Grayhound is an old outdated system that while a good workhorse and a slightly higher load capacity, is not as flexible and thus not as cost savings to keep. The video flat out stated the Osprey makes up for its smaller load capacity with the ability to lift externally and its VTOL capabilities. It is also able to refuel which means it has a greater range.
Basically everything this video said supports replacing the greyhound instead of spending the money to maintain two separate crafts., because the Osprey is literally the better choice.
Did you even watch the video? The only thing the Osprey can't do is is carry 10000lbs internally but it is still big enough to carry a single engine for any fixed wing or rotory wing aircraft which is the biggest thing the C-2 carries, so the extra 4ooo is kinda moot.
@@onegemini420 Just because it is old does not mean it is not doing the job. Nothing has changed in the replenishment role that makes the Greyhound obsolete. Almost double is not 'slightly', and I highly doubt the complexity of the osprey is going to mean cost savings over a conventional turboprop. I don't think refuelling is as big a deal as is made out, because it is not new tech or particularly hard, and if it had significant value it would have been added at some point in the 60 years.
External loads are sort of useful, but I don't see anybody doing much plane mode flying if they have one. If they did really need an Osprey for a particular load, they could ask the marines at a stretch anyway, but external loads would be far better off from a dedicated helicopter.
Saying that the VTOL 'made up for' the cargo is misleading, because the two are unrelated. What this decision tells you is that they could manage fine with a smaller cargo capacity. It was not a deal breaker. If it couldn't do the job they needed it for then it wouldn't matter if it could dance, it would be rejected.
To understand this decision it might be better to think of it as replacing search and rescue, and realising that it can also just do replenishment. The greyhound did it's job just great, but you simply don't need it if you have Ospreys anyway. If a pilot ejects injured 50km from the carrier, they have to wait for a heli to pick them up, take them back to the carrier, then get catapulted in a Greyhound, then get from the airport to hospital. An Osprey could get there faster than the heli, and go straight to land in the hospital carpark if required. Using space on the carrier for a less capable aircraft to 'free up' a more capable one misses the fact that space is the premium, not the aircraft.
@@agsystems8220the greyhound is obsolete in the fact it cannot carrier the F-35s massive F135 engine and this is the main reason the CV-22 is being used to replace the C-2. It's the only thing with the range and ability to bring a vital component to the carrier.
Another one just crashed with 20 Marines on board.
So how come it keeps crashing?
I love this channel it explains everything do essily, and makes it sound all enteraining, and a lot of what he says is right unlike other channels,im not saying he never makes mistakes,its just he makes less of them than other people with less enteraining videos,i just would wish if this channel uploaded every 2-3 days
They're 30+ year old tech before the US even starts buying them in bulk
I was just thinking of the insane logistics of in air refueling. The planning and people involved...its crazy.
Rip to the marines that just died on one.
Another MV-22B Osprey has just crashed off Melville Island in the Northern Territory Australia during an exercise this morning.
I was with VRC40 in Norfolk 99-01 with the shore detachment. I thought it was really cool working on the C-2's. I was a structure and hydraulic mechanic, AMS and then merged with AMH to just become AM. Something interesting about the engines... They used the Allison T-56 which was used on the E-2 as well as the C-130. It was also used in the P-3 Orion which was the next aircraft I worked with at VP-16 in Jacksonville. About VRC-40 though, not long after I went to Jacksonville, All Hands magazine did an article about them and their mission and they flew the film crew and stars for Tears of the Sun out to a carrier for filming. I still have that magazine. They have pics with Bruce Willis and I think Tom Skerritt in the COD wearing flight deck helmets, also called cranials.
I’ve always been amazed by the Osprey.
Such a unique aircraft and so good at its role.
I Can see the Osprey being a game-changer for frigates. We usually Unreped but occasionally Vertreped with a helo nearly as big as we were. Range was an issue if we were independent streaming though.
This did not age well....
Well it one of the safest aircraft in the military people say it bad but every crash is on the news
Very unfortunate timing.
I don't see the V-22 being safe at all, and its final approval was motivated by 2 wars that needed solutions that it almost fit, but it has no emergency landing ability other than crashing. I know a fixed wing replacement is being worked on that will have longer legs than the C2A Greyhound and V-22 Osprey and greater cargo capabilities. Its not pretty, but its capable.
It is $ Dollars per flight hour that make an aircraft a legend, not just capability. So many super aircraft have come and gone because the just cost to much to keep flying.
If the Osprey is so good why did one just make a hole in Tiwi Island?
Last I heard they were grounding all these birds because of design flaws that needed to be addressed.
The osprey being grounded would suggest this is not the case
To replace the Greyhound. The Osprey doesn't do to well if it loses one engine.
I'd think the C-2 isn't going away just yet because it's been long proven and has lower operational costs. If they're replacing it, they'll need something with better turn-around on flight hours than the rotor-wing craft too. Might see a more efficient aircraft with high-bypass ducted fan jets in the works taking on the role to make up for limited availability of the Osprey variant.
The C-2s are being replaced because they were all built in the 80s and are reaching the end of their viable service life due to strain on the airframe. Not everything is about being "rugged" and "reliable".
I find it interesting that even though we've heard over the years how bothersome the Osprey can be because of it's high complexity, they're still going with it. That alone speaks to it's capabilities
No. It says that the manufacturer showers congress with bribes/campaign contributions.
Because its not a deathtrap, people are just idiots. Its actually one of the most reliable airframes we have. Theres a reason the president uses one
@@kostakatsoulis2922
Where do you get the president flies on?
I looked it up, says he is not allowed because unsafe history.
@@jbird6609that's clealy misinfo since its history is not "unsafe". If that's the case President should be banned from flying in black hawks, or any other helicopter in service. Osprey has better reliability per statistics than any of them.
@@jbird6609 They are not "normally" allowed to but POTUS will do as POTUS wants to.
didn’t they just crash one of these recently
what is the annual maintenance and operational costs for each
I suspect that the Osprety is yet another hugely expensive tech to operate and a hangar queen
The Osprey has been trouble since the 90s. It's gotta be someone important's pet project.
This aged well…
Too good at killing our own troops
one crashed in australia
It just crashed yesterday on an exercise in Australia. RIP
Navy Vet "out less than a year" that worked on C-2 "O-Level", and V-22 "I-Level". Ground forces hate it because the engines get too much in the intake like sand and dirt. In theory, this all works well for the Navy. The C-2 greyhound is always loaded with just enough weight to be able to fly with only 1 engine. The V-22 has what is like a "Limited slip differential" gearbox so it can also fly with one engine if need be. The biggest problem is that, that feature is having issues and can even start to activate when it shouldn't, sending the aircraft into a violent shake and things fall apart. The Military has already dumped too much money into the program to let it fail. It'll always be labeled "pilot error" or "technical problems" because they wont admit the gearbox issue, even though the platform keeps getting grounded in different branches of service "last year was the air force". the pilots i know say they don't want to fly those death traps, and i trust them over any reporter that has never been in the seat.
I think we're at 4 development crashes with 30 deaths, and in service "2007" with 11 crashes now with about 24 deaths now. 2 combat with "unknown" causes, and the rest is "pilot error" and "technical problems".
Safety and durability are still concerns with the Osprey.
I saw one on approach and transitioning for landing in an airport in my town in the south of france, I gotta admit that thing looks amazing. I'm shocked to hear they don't plan to order more of those though
From what I've gathered online its is very demanding on maintenance and therefore availability is lower than what was hoped for. One would expect, that the lessons learned from the V-280 Valor would be put to use in a new marine / naval tilt rotor design.
@@Locomotion-uz4ly will have to look up the Valor as it sounds interesting, thanks for that☺.
Considering that an Osprey with 23 marines just crashed in Northern Australia, killing three, this is an unfortunately-timed video.
This just in a Ferrari crashing means it’s a crappy car. /s
It's the most recent crash since last year's crash in June and the one before it in March...but none before that since 2017. Seven aircraft in Eight years, since 2015.
How many other type/model/series rotorcraft of similar design have crashed in the same time period?
H-60s with nine aircraft lost. That's the closest. You don't want to hear the UH-1 numbers, but there are SO many variations and airframes out there...
It's kind of an apples to uglier apples comparison since there aren't any other tiltrotor aircraft manufactured on the same scale and distribution, but the rotary configuration is the most dangerous flight regime, so helicopters are comparable.
I sincerely hope they never have an issue with the CH-53K. In this day and age, I can already hear the whining.
Did anybody else notice that the dollar sign in the price for a flight hour of the C-2 greyhound was a hashtag
What happens when Osprey is grounded due to it's known mechanical problems? Osprey: Too damn complex, maintenance hog, and UNRELIABLE. Thus it would be wise to not rely on it...
Hey NWYT I got a question, Would the V-22 have more wake turbulence than a conventional aircraft which has wings when aerial refueling?
Yes
Not if they are crashed like most of them, I’m not joking the osprey is extremely difficult to fly and commonly are involved in crashes
Depends on what aircraft you’re talking about.
The amount of air turbulence varies greatly between airframes.
@@aperson336That was only true during testing and initial deployment. The current osprey has a normal crash rate.
@@DeltaEntropy when the propellers have as big of a surface area as other planes, Osprey profile don't matter no more, those propellers are whipping up a typhoon every time they spin.
Take it from me, someone who actually flew in an osprey (marine).
Tho had to drop out less than a year into the program cos of a severe back injury
The Opsrey is my favorite, it's challenging landing the thing in Microsoft flight simulator, I can't tell you how many times I slammed it on the floor or used too much power.
A lot of it is done by feel, like racing in a car. Totally lost in a simulation. Try thinking ahead a full 5 or 10 seconds instead of right now..... In the flying simulation, anyway. Sacrifice some of your awareness for better flight but you should be able to balance it out.
@@DarthObscurity unless he has a full experience cockpit simulator with the XYZ axis sims...
Dude made this video literally 2 days before an osprey crashed. Well done