Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey - Development and Proposed Variants

[flateric]

JVX brochure from old good times

 

[flateric]

...and now for something completely different...

 

[LowObservable]

And... they're coming to take me away, ha! ha!

 

[flateric]

This scary stuff was in a paper that Robunos has found.

 

[robunos]

i knew you'd like it...

cheers,
Robin.

 

[yasotay]

*sigh*

Flateric always has the coolest stuff!

;D

 

[Pioneer]

I still do not understand why they (US military and Bell) did not develop a operational variant of the JVX prototype?
Ok I know it is smaller than what the Yanks would like! (then again the yanks are never happy with small! )
But it would have made for a great basis for a combat / anti-tank/anti-helicopter aircraft, not to mention a great combat forward observer aircraft, which could have been in service years ago.
Added to this a combat escort variant of the JVX would make a great escort to the eventual MV-22 – as the likes of the Bell AH-1W/Z are not going to be able too keep up with the speed and range of the MV-22 Osprey.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[F-14D]

I still do not understand why they (US military and Bell) did not develop a operational variant of the JVX prototype?
Ok I know it is smaller than what the Yanks would like! (then again the yanks are never happy with small! )
But it would have made for a great basis for a combat / anti-tank/anti-helicopter aircraft, not to mention a great combat forward observer aircraft, which could have been in service years ago.
Added to this a combat escort variant of the JVX would make a great escort to the eventual MV-22 – as the likes of the Bell AH-1W/Z are not going to be able too keep up with the speed and range of the MV-22 Osprey.

Regards
Pioneer

The MV-22 is the operational variant of the JVX prototype, since the purpose of JVX was to develop the V-22. I suspect you are referring to the XV-15, which was actually a NASA/Army technology demonstrator of Tilt-Rotor technology demonstrator.

There were a number of reasons why a version based on the XV-15 didn't appear. For one thing, the XV-15 was kludged together because of limited funding. Armed versions based on that aerodynamic shape were proposed, but they would have actually been all new aircraft. You can find pictures of them on this forum. They went nowhere because with the Army effectively defining Tilt-Rotor out of the LHX competition in favor of a lower performance helo, it wasn't going to embarrass itself by developing an armed Tilt-Rotor. USMC wanted to develop such a craft and in fact had a program started called VMAO. However, in 1992-2000 there was not a chance of money being provided for a new start like that since virtually all new programs were already being restructured so that the big money requirements would show up after the 2000 US elections. Not a prayer of something totally new like that starting then. There has been some discussion of a vehicle based on the BA-609 in the next decade, and USMC has made it clear they would like to follow the AH-1Z with a Tilt-Rotor, possibly as a joint program with Army.

It comes down to money.

 

[Pioneer]

You are 100% correct on my mistake about the use of the term JVX, instead of XV-15 ???
Thanks for correcting me F-14D! ;D

Regards
Pioneer

 

[yasotay]

I still do not understand why they (US military and Bell) did not develop a operational variant of the JVX prototype?
Ok I know it is smaller than what the Yanks would like! (then again the yanks are never happy with small! )
But it would have made for a great basis for a combat / anti-tank/anti-helicopter aircraft, not to mention a great combat forward observer aircraft, which could have been in service years ago.
Added to this a combat escort variant of the JVX would make a great escort to the eventual MV-22 – as the likes of the Bell AH-1W/Z are not going to be able too keep up with the speed and range of the MV-22 Osprey.

Regards
Pioneer

The MV-22 is the operational variant of the JVX prototype, since the purpose of JVX was to develop the V-22. I suspect you are referring to the XV-15, which was actually a NASA/Army technology demonstrator of Tilt-Rotor technology demonstrator.

There were a number of reasons why a version based on the XV-15 didn't appear. For one thing, the XV-15 was kludged together because of limited funding. Armed versions based on that aerodynamic shape were proposed, but they would have actually been all new aircraft. You can find pictures of them on this forum. They went nowhere because with the Army effectively defining Tilt-Rotor out of the LHX competition in favor of a lower performance helo, it wasn't going to embarrass itself by developing an armed Tilt-Rotor. USMC wanted to develop such a craft and in fact had a program started called VMAO. However, in 1992-2000 there was not a chance of money being provided for a new start like that since virtually all new programs were already being restructured so that the big money requirements would show up after the 2000 US elections. Not a prayer of something totally new like that starting then. There has been some discussion of a vehicle based on the BA-609 in the next decade, and USMC has made it clear they would like to follow the AH-1Z with a Tilt-Rotor, possibly as a joint program with Army.

It comes down to money.

VMAO?? Any information on the efforts of the USMC with this program?.

There is a possibility that the Joint Multi-Role program... that is not really a program yet will meet the USMC requirement, in a couple of decades. More like wishful thinking by industry and some more progressive combat developers no doubt, although the (US) Army Science Board gave it a ringing endorsement in this last years report I hear.

Here is a photo from an old briefing from the bowls of file cabinet (although a rather recent addition I think).

 

[F-14D]

VMAO?? Any information on the efforts of the USMC with this program?.

There is a possibility that the Joint Multi-Role program... that is not really a program yet will meet the USMC requirement, in a couple of decades. More like wishful thinking by industry and some more progressive combat developers no doubt, although the (US) Army Science Board gave it a ringing endorsement in this last years report I hear.

Here is a photo from an old briefing from the bowls of file cabinet (although a rather recent addition I think).

VMAO stood for "Versatile Marine Attack and Observation", I believe. it was a proposed development in the early '90s for a platform to replace the AH-1W, UH-1N and OV-10D. It was supposed to be a tandem seat V/STOL aircraft with a range of 500nm, cruise speed of 325 knots and 30 minute dash speed of at least 350 knots. Carrying defensive armament and external tanks it was supposed to have a ferry range of 2100nm at at least 210 knots. Normal weapons load would be at least 12 PGMs (I don't know if they meant Hellfire, TOW or what), 38 rockets, 2 AIM-9X, and 1500 rounds of 20/25 mm ammo.

Clearly, they were looking at a Tilt-Rotor, and I suspect size would have been closer to that of the XV-15, which would have made development easier that the much larger V-22.

Given the Defense environment of the '90s, this wasn't going to happen.

 

[M167A1]

There were a lot of fanciful illustrations in the ADA community in the late 80s that showed various US tiltrotor designs dueling with Hinds or hind inspired Sov titlrotors, I think back in those days some of us thought that everything would be a tilt rotor by now.

 

[F-14D]

Floating through old briefings I came across a couple of Bell designs. The first two are is a Pressurized V-22. It also appears to have a fixed wing , vice a turnable one for ship storage. It may be my imagination but the prop-rotors appear to be larger as well, leading me to believe that this was/is intended for a land based platform.

The third is obviously an attack TR. I think it was the final work on a Army project to do rapid assembly rotorcraft. That is however a guess on my part.

The first two may be based on the JVX/V-22 variant that was originally planned for the Army with a pressurized cockpit and different rotors for a 30,000 ft. cruise. It was to perform the Army's SEMA mission. However USAF bitterly opposed its development and it was dropped. The last drawing appears to be a 2 seat version based on Bell's original submission for LHX, before the Army redid the specifications so as to eliminate Tilt-Rotor. It is possible that if this isn't that, it could also be a concept drawing of a possible proposal for VMAO.

...or it could be just a marketing drawing.

 

[yasotay]

The first two come from a Bell briefing given in 2005. I know the Bell-Boeing team continues to try and find a way to get the Army to see past its helicopter myopia. Although to be fair the price tag for a V-22 is pretty rich for the Army.

I suspect that the last one was a revision to the VMAO effort that was not as "futuristic" as the canard, forward swept design that was originally worked on. Perhaps it reduced the weight and cost of the aircraft to a certain degree.

 

[F-14D]

The first two come from a Bell briefing given in 2005. I know the Bell-Boeing team continues to try and find a way to get the Army to see past its helicopter myopia. Although to be fair the price tag for a V-22 is pretty rich for the Army.

I suspect that the last one was a revision to the VMAO effort that was not as "futuristic" as the canard, forward swept design that was originally worked on. Perhaps it reduced the weight and cost of the aircraft to a certain degree.

In Army's defense, they seem to be favoring Tilt-Rotor for the JHL component of Joint Future Lift, although if USAF takes over the program as expected we may not see this come to fruition as USAF considers a 1,000 ft. takeoff run as "Super STOL" and doesn't seem to see the need for anything better than that. I guess with the area cleared for that size runway they could get in a t lest a two hole golf course, and that could be their compromise for the joint program. javascript:void(0);
Cheesy

I always thought the forward swept canard was just a "futuristic" concept drawing, not tied to VMAO. The only pics I ever saw of concepts for that were V-tailed straight wings. But then, it's been a long time.

 

[yasotay]

The first two come from a Bell briefing given in 2005. I know the Bell-Boeing team continues to try and find a way to get the Army to see past its helicopter myopia. Although to be fair the price tag for a V-22 is pretty rich for the Army.

I suspect that the last one was a revision to the VMAO effort that was not as "futuristic" as the canard, forward swept design that was originally worked on. Perhaps it reduced the weight and cost of the aircraft to a certain degree.

In Army's defense, they seem to be favoring Tilt-Rotor for the JHL component of Joint Future Lift, although if USAF takes over the program as expected we may not see this come to fruition as USAF considers a 1,000 ft. takeoff run as "Super STOL" and doesn't seem to see the need for anything better than that. I guess with the area cleared for that size runway they could get in a t lest a two hole golf course, and that could be their compromise for the joint program. javascript:void(0);
Cheesy

I always thought the forward swept canard was just a "futuristic" concept drawing, not tied to VMAO. The only pics I ever saw of concepts for that were V-tailed straight wings. But then, it's been a long time.

While some in the Army have started to realize that the next generation of rotorcraft will likely have to be non-conventional (other than single main or tandem (without aux propulsion), the ones who count are not willing to stand up and say anything in light of the huge reset bill that is going to occur at some point.

I think I recall reading many years ago in Wings three issue article on TR that the futuristic design was specifically designs to go below deck for the USMC and fit into the same space as a UH/AH-1. I know that a significant amount of engineering work went into it as I have a briefing (alas still marked) and a report of the dynamics for the cross shafting system. Interestingly though, the information was developed for the Army, not the USMC.

 

[F-14D]

The first two come from a Bell briefing given in 2005. I know the Bell-Boeing team continues to try and find a way to get the Army to see past its helicopter myopia. Although to be fair the price tag for a V-22 is pretty rich for the Army.

I suspect that the last one was a revision to the VMAO effort that was not as "futuristic" as the canard, forward swept design that was originally worked on. Perhaps it reduced the weight and cost of the aircraft to a certain degree.

In Army's defense, they seem to be favoring Tilt-Rotor for the JHL component of Joint Future Lift, although if USAF takes over the program as expected we may not see this come to fruition as USAF considers a 1,000 ft. takeoff run as "Super STOL" and doesn't seem to see the need for anything better than that. I guess with the area cleared for that size runway they could get in a t lest a two hole golf course, and that could be their compromise for the joint program. javascript:void(0);
Cheesy

I always thought the forward swept canard was just a "futuristic" concept drawing, not tied to VMAO. The only pics I ever saw of concepts for that were V-tailed straight wings. But then, it's been a long time.

While some in the Army have started to realize that the next generation of rotorcraft will likely have to be non-conventional (other than single main or tandem (without aux propulsion), the ones who count are not willing to stand up and say anything in light of the huge reset bill that is going to occur at some point.

I think I recall reading many years ago in Wings three issue article on TR that the futuristic design was specifically designs to go below deck for the USMC and fit into the same space as a UH/AH-1. I know that a significant amount of engineering work went into it as I have a briefing (alas still marked) and a report of the dynamics for the cross shafting system. Interestingly though, the information was developed for the Army, not the USMC.

We may be talking about two different advanced canard concepts. I think the foldy one you're talking about was the one called "Mighty Mouse", which was a proposal for a utility/attack bird. The one I'm thinking of was more streamlined and had a more pronounced forward sweep, although it's been many years. You know, looking at those other two pictures in your post again, the nose looks a lot like recent Army illustrations of a "High Efficiency Tilt-Rotor" (HETR), except those illustrations show a V tail and four bladed proprotors. I wonder if the pics you have are of an intermediate stage?

 

[GTX]

An earlier iteration/interpretation of the AEW V-22 with more conventional rotodome:

Regards,

Greg

 

[Rickshaw]

Wouldn't the rotors interfere with the radar? Particularly if they tilted anywhere from the horizontal? Wouldn't it be more like to be perhaps a downwards folding system like the Searchwater or the Russian helicopter mounted one?

 

[dan_inbox]

Wouldn't the rotors interfere with the radar? Particularly if they tilted anywhere from the horizontal?

Presumably they would not perform search in hover mode, but in horizontal flight mode, if only for endurance.

And there no reason why a C-22's rotor would interfere more than the E-2C's props.
Especially if they are made of radar-transparent material.

 

[Jemiba]

"Wouldn't the rotors interfere with the radar?"

"there no reason why a C-22's rotor would interfere more than
the E-2C's props. Especially if they are made of radar-transparent material."

Although I don't think, the rotors are completely radar-transparent, each blade would
interfere only for a short moment and within a changing sector. The whole problem
may be comparable to firing synchronised guns in a prop driven aircraft. Nevertheless,
I would expect a lower radar range in the forward sector.

 

[starviking]

"Nevertheless,
I would expect a lower radar range in the forward sector.

I'd think it'd be more like random chunks being taken out of the forward sector - no range issue per se.

 

[flateric]

Cool V-22 ad. Interestingly, first it came in my sight that V-22 is saving Typhoon crew after it has missile explosion in a launch tube...after closer examination, V-22 uses sonar beacon and torpedo to create the situation when she could save them from the sinking sub...

 

[Triton]

Has the long development process of the V-22 Osprey been a surprise to those in the military and aviation communities? When did they originally expect the V-22 to enter service?

 

[flateric]

Gooooogle

 

[Triton]

Gooooogle

I know what Dick Cheney thought of the V-22 Osprey. I wanted the thoughts of posters to the forum like yasotay. He did say that the Department of the Army did have helicopter myopia.

Would posters agree with the Time magazine article by Mark Thompson published on September 26, 2007 who describes the V-22 as a "flying shame."

 

[quellish]

Gooooogle

I know what Dick Cheney thought of the V-22 Osprey. I wanted the thoughts of posters to the forum like yasotay. He did say that the Department of the Army did have helicopter myopia.

Would posters agree with the Time magazine article by Mark Thompson published on September 26, 2007 who describes the V-22 as a "flying shame."

In my opinion....
1. The V-22 offers a set of capabilities that greatly aid the warfighter. How many times in afghanistan have we seen rotary wing aircraft pushed too far, too high, too hard. The V-22 is an ideal system for the conflicts we are engaged in today.
2. The original JVX was to be operational in *1988*. Pre-production V-22s were flying in 1990 - but only now are they operational, after billions of dollars and years of delays. At what cost do we get these capabilities?

 

[Triton]

In my opinion....
1. The V-22 offers a set of capabilities that greatly aid the warfighter. How many times in afghanistan have we seen rotary wing aircraft pushed too far, too high, too hard. The V-22 is an ideal system for the conflicts we are engaged in today.
2. The original JVX was to be operational in *1988*. Pre-production V-22s were flying in 1990 - but only now are they operational, after billions of dollars and years of delays. At what cost do we get these capabilities?

IIRC, Dick Cheney, when he was Secretary of Defense under President George HW Bush, wanted to cancel the V-22 Osprey and buy the Marines Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion.

 

[OM]

In my opinion....
1. The V-22 offers a set of capabilities that greatly aid the warfighter. How many times in afghanistan have we seen rotary wing aircraft pushed too far, too high, too hard. The V-22 is an ideal system for the conflicts we are engaged in today.
2. The original JVX was to be operational in *1988*. Pre-production V-22s were flying in 1990 - but only now are they operational, after billions of dollars and years of delays. At what cost do we get these capabilities?

IIRC, Dick Cheney, when he was Secretary of Defense under President George HW Bush, wanted to cancel the V-22 Osprey and buy the Marines Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion.

...That was only after he'd been lambasted for wanting to cancel the Osprey and not replace it with anything. His initial claim was that the Marines had what they needed and didn't need anything more. Bush, on the other hand, believed the Osprey was the superior choice, and overrode Cheney. Possibly the last time a Bush did that.

 

[hesham]

JVX brochure from old good times

http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-V-22A-Osprey.html

 

[AeroFranz]

is that a sad, sad, telescopic mast-mounted sight sticking out of the top of the gunship in Hesham's last post?

 

[Orionblamblam]

is that a sad, sad, telescopic mast-mounted sight sticking out of the top of the gunship in Hesham's last post?

Yes. There is sense in that arrangement, of course. You want to put the targettign sensors as high as you can.

 

[AeroFranz]

yeah, so the rest of the aircraft can remain below the treeline and yadda yadda.
What I don't understand is that (I'm guessing here) you'd want the assembly to be rigid, otherwise the sensor is moving relative to the vehicle frame and you can't tell the weapons in which direction the sensor is looking. That spindly, telescopic mast sure looks like it could flex in anything but a hover. I don't know where else they could put the thing, but the shown installation is not very credible IMHO.

 

[yasotay]

There is no longer a requirement for the sensor to be on top of the aircraft. In fact the ARH requirement did away with it. The flight profile being used now has often had the sensor having to look through the rotor system.

 

[Matej]

Nice one

 

[Matej]

V-22 AEW variant patent (related to its radome)

http://www.google.com/patents?id=AtQtAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&rview=1&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

[hesham]

An earlier iteration/interpretation of the AEW V-22 with more conventional rotodome:

Regards,

Greg

For the V-22 AEW,please see also the Flightglobal;

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1990/1990%20-%201295.html?search=airbus%20aew

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Renamed topic

 

[AeroFranz]

Been doing the usual amount of searches, here and on the web, but i can't find a picture of a tanker V-22. I'm trying to find out what the refueling installation would look like. I'm assuming some sort of pods somewhere around midspan, but maybe the V-22's installation is unlike that of a fixed-wing aircraft. Does anyone have an artist's impression?

 

[yasotay]

I have seen a piece of artwork of a V-22 (in Navy livery I think) with a FA-18 behind it. Drogue and probe naturally. It was an overhead view, but if I recall correctly it was a certerline positioning of the hose. This makes me think that the drum and pump unit were to be some sort of "roll on / roll of" unit for the aircraft.