V-22 aircraft cost of operation compared with performance?

05 July 2017, 06:34

Am I correct that the V-22 aircraft is the first [generation] of its kind? If this is accurate, I anticipate it's fair to believe that future aircraft of its type will be more reliable and less costly to operate and maintain. I also anticipate this aircraft has some set of demonstrable advantages; otherwise why bother developing it.

The previous paragraph prefaces request for information.
1. How does a V-22 compare in cost per unit of flying time with helicopters having similar purpose?

2. Comparing V-22 with that class of helicopter, how much of an advantage or superiority - if any - has the V-22? Is that superiority worth its premium cost per aircraft? Factoring in differences in cost per unit of flying time, does V-22 maintain that superiority?

3. As best you can judge, is V-22's basis design too expensive to continue to evolve - that is, is it analogous to an F-22 or B-2 in terms of too expensive to truly manufacture in quantities necessary?

05 July 2017, 07:36

richj

interesting. I have no idea how this stacks up .

The V-22 Osprey had 9 hull-loss accidents that resulted in a total of 39 fatalities. During testing from 1991 to 2000 there were four crashes resulting in 30 fatalities.[1] Since becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had five crashes including two combat-zone crashes,[2][3] and several other accidents and incidents that resulted in nine fatalities.

US Air Force's most expensive planes

http://www.businessinsider.com...ht-hour-chart-2016-3

05 July 2017, 21:55

Naphtali

Richj: Your link shows unexpected numbers. I wonder, though, whether the cost per flying hour in the link includes what I assumed is an integral part of "cost per flying hour" - that is, maintenance, parts' inventory and production line, amount of down time per flying hour. Amount of down time per flying hour is a monster in the closet that, to my mind, would become the primary cost in a serious and longish fight. Vietnam and Korea would be examples.
***
But a nuclear war in which the United States is a participant almost certainly would not. Rather it would be the antithesis. I'm guessing one of these would last less than a day.
***
As I understand, among the advantages of the A-10 is its low cost per flying hour and short time (turnaround time??) to prepare the aircraft for subsequent sorties.

26 August 2017, 14:28

Cougarz

quote:
Originally posted by Naphtali:
Am I correct that the V-22 aircraft is the first [generation] of its kind? If this is accurate, I anticipate it's fair to believe that future aircraft of its type will be more reliable and less costly to operate and maintain. I also anticipate this aircraft has some set of demonstrable advantages; otherwise why bother developing it.

They design isn't new. Bell built several prototypes starting in the 1950's. Just prior to the start of development of the V-22 they built the XV-15, a small two crew version. It was made from from the standard aluminum. To scale up the V-22 to the size needed it had to made from from carbon fiber or it would be too heavy to leave the ground. So extensive tests had to be made to develop both the materials and manufacturing techniques to make it. This had never been done before on any other aircraft of any type. So far more went into the design than just throwing some drawings in an existing factory and slapping something together. New materials, new manufacturing methods and new design - it costs money buts that's what was required.

The previous paragraph prefaces request for information.
1. How does a V-22 compare in cost per unit of flying time with helicopters having similar purpose?

I don't know without looking it up the unit cost but in general the V-22 has better fuel mileage than a conventional helicopter. I doubt the maintenance cost is much higher than a similar sized convention helicopter.

2. Comparing V-22 with that class of helicopter, how much of an advantage or superiority - if any - has the V-22? Is that superiority worth its premium cost per aircraft? Factoring in differences in cost per unit of flying time, does V-22 maintain that superiority?

its more survivable than any conventional helicopter. The V-22 has much faster egress, i.e. It gets away much faster and climbs out quicker than any helicopter. It also has faster ingress since it comes in higher than dives down quicker to land. Quieter to less chance to detect it coming in. It's also much faster and therefore safer in a combat zone where people are shooting at you.

3. As best you can judge, is V-22's basis design too expensive to continue to evolve - that is, is it analogous to an F-22 or B-2 in terms of too expensive to truly manufacture in quantities necessary?

It certainly will continue to evolve and has. You watch too much tv. Most of what's said in the media about the V-22, B-2 and F-22 is false or highly misleading. The contractor doesn't write the contract, the government does so they agree beforehand to the price and what's being developed prior to the start unlike what the media wants you to believe. They just want yo find fault with anything they don't understand. The expense came when the B-2 was limited to only 21 airplanes from the original 132 planned, the F-22 to 175(?) from the original 750. The contract allows development costs to be spread out across the entire planned purchase so if the the number is reduce the unit cost goes up. None of these aircraft are cheap to develop, they aren't greyhound busses, they're race cars and the cost reflects the technical difficulty to develop and produce. If you want cheaper unit costs than tell congress to fully fund the program to its planned number without the usual starting and stopping and other games they play with military procurement.