GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Marine Corps seeks return to its role as a naval force

• 51913
  

  The EFV Program is a disaster. I just left there. It is a program that has been mismanaged by General Dynamics, and probably never will be fielded. On cost-plus, GD will be paid, and the USMC will spend, they say 25 percent of it's budget for this dream, but my prediction is that it will never be in service.

  ron Posted June 7, 2008 10:50 PM
• 50858
  

  "Amateurs study history, professionals study logistics." This article proves that.

  Frank Black Posted May 16, 2008 11:38 PM
• 50753
  

  Easily on of the most interesting and best laid out articles I have read anywhere in a long time. GJB reference "many errors" I disagree, there were very few, and on balance GJB's assertions are based on subjective interpretations of test results. I only wish we could get this kind of quality on the NSPS stories.

  The H-Man Posted May 15, 2008 12:28 PM
• 50715
  

  Wow - It is obvious that the information presented has a very difficult approach to determine how our Marines will be used in the future. With the DOD, Congress, our Marines and numerous outsiders inputting their ideas (some good, some bad) will require enormous concentration and coordination. My fear is that we can run into a complete bag of mud, with so many pretenders and politicians. Pick the top leaders and those who have the resposibility for funding to get it together, and leave the "dont knows" at home.

  Col Hal Phelan (Ret) Posted May 15, 2008 9:24 AM
• 50702
  

  Launching combat forces over the horizon from 25 to 100 miles is one thing and the Corps is taking this on. Sustaining it is still a giant question and problem. Communicating over the horizon is still difficult and will require moderization equal to that of the combat arms.

  stanley J. Stolpe Posted May 15, 2008 7:52 AM
• 50689
  

  Far too many errors to correct when limited to only 400 words but the following:

  "Whether the V-22's unique design makes it more or less vulnerable to this particular kind of accident than a traditional two-rotor helicopter is an opaque technical debate."

  is blatantly wrong. HROD testing which was completed in 2003 confirmed that the V-22 is less susceptible to VRS than any other rotary winged platform flying. Recovery from VRS, if encountered, is accomplished easier and quicker in a V-22 as well.

  From the report:

  In August 2003, the V - 22 Integrated Test Team completed a thorough investigation of the V - 22's low-speed / HROD flightcharacteristics. Testing defined an operational envelope for the aircraft and demonstrated flight regimes free from vortex ring state (VRS). Tests also probed deeply into fully developed VRS to determine precise flight conditions where it may be en-countered, and to confirm the ability of the V - 22 to recover from the condition. The ability to tilt the nacelles proved to be a powerful and (in every case) reliable means for rapidly regaining aerodynamic function of the rotors, even when operating inVRS beyond the point of having sufficient controllability. Results for steady-state HROD conditions are presented and themethods for testing are described. In an operational sense, the test results show that the V - 22 has a significantly higher rateof descent margin for avoiding VRS with respect to the published NATOPS limitation than conventional low disk-loadinghelicopters. Furthermore, dynamic maneuver testing of the V - 22 showed that VRS cannot be initiated outside the steady-state VRS boundary. Simple engineering analysis is used to show that the V - 22's steady-state VRS boundary is predictable by simple methods that work for conventional helicopters. High blade twist, and the side-by-side rotor configuration of theV - 22 do not play a significant role in defining the VRS boundary.

  GJB Posted May 14, 2008 11:55 PM