This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
:raft’
so
Shortly after the MV-22 Osprey rollout in Arlington, Texas (See also p. 123), Proceedings editors John Miller and Laura D. Johnston interviewed Lieutenant General Charles H. Pitman, Deputy Chief of Staff for Marine Corps Aviation— seen here strapping on the Osprey’s predecessor—the XV-15 tilt-rotor aircraft.
Proceedings: At the recent Osprey rollout, we compared the MV-22 to the old UH-34 of the early Vietnam days—a tremendous jump in size and capability. At that time, you remarked that it’s too bad you won’t be around to see the Osprey fully operational. At present, deliveries are planned to start in 1991. When will you have the first squadron ready to stand up?
Pitman: The first squadron will be standing up in 1994. But we’ll have operational aircraft before that—in the training squadrons, as we transition the aircrews and pilots, as well as mechanics, into the MV-22 program. So even though the first production models will roll off the lines in 1991-92-93, it will be really the summer of 1994 before we get operational capability. Of course, the timing will depend in part on the budget and where we stand in production. But as we see the 1989 budget and projections for the future, we expect to have our first operational squadron—HMM-261—on time. It will be standing up at Marine Corps Air Station, New River, North Carolina.
Proceedings: On the subject of the budget: We’re facing some lean years, but at the rollout ceremony there was a lot of talk about other uses for the tilt- rotor aircraft beyond military ones. Representatives from the Federal Aviation Agency [FAA] were there, speaking of its high potential for civil aviation. Will this help the MV-22 program stay in business?
Pitman: Yes, definitely. And there are still other uses, military uses—not only in our sister services, but among our allies, as well. At the same time, companies are looking at the commercial aspects. Civil aviation sounds like a great market for tilt-rotor aircraft, but that application will require a change in thinking about the way we do business. At any rate, the FAA is looking at it to solve some of their air traffic problems around the major airports in the northeast quadrant of the United States. The southwest quadrant, of course, presents similar problems: relatively short intercity flying distances, lots of traffic on the ground, and limited space to put airports—things like that. The tilt-rotor can help ease that kind of congestion.
We’re concentrating primarily on the military area, and our program office sees a 600-plus—602, actually— airplane market out there among our allies. That number could change, of course, but we do believe that the MV-22 program will offer something to the entire Free World—and will probably give the Soviets some ideas, as well, once we get it flying.
Proceedings: In mentioning other uses, do you see some for the Marine Corps, other than assault lift? Possibly as a gunship?
Pitman: As a gunship, it presents some significant problems right now— maintaining gunship capability while moving the two rotors forward from the helicopter into the airplane mode, for example. Mounting ordnance on the wings is also a problem. But the speed and versatility of the MV-22 may give us cause to figure out how we could beat these problems. It might drive us to a whole new way of thinking. At the moment, we don’t have an Osprey gunship on the drawing boards, but we have received some proposals and a number of artists’ conceptions. In its current configuration, the MV-22 is probably too large to be used effectively gun-on-gun against ground-base antiaircraft defenses. However, a scaled-down, more fighterized or attack-type tilt-rotor might offer some advantages.
We’ve looked at it as a tanker, h could be used as a tanker—not only for other MV-22s but for tactical avia tion in general. I must say, however, as one who’s watched tradition over time, I can’t see many jet pilots lining up to get behind one of these Ospreys and take gas. So I don’t see it as a major replacement for our KC-130, which is quite adequate at this time-
Proceedings: In finding people to fly and maintain the aircraft, do you expect more applicants from the fixed" wing or the rotary-wing community- Pitman: Of course, we’re several >'e^ away from going operational—so it started taking applicants now, they could well be out of the Marine Corp before they could get around to fly"U Ospreys. But there are a lot of pe°P e interested in flying the aircraft. The ^ aircrews will come primarily from 1 helicopter community, because helm ters are going out as the MV-22 co in. It’s not really a toss-up between fixed-wing and a helo pilot. We re going to have a lot of helicopter P>10 without anything to fly, and the Osp is the replacement aircraft. I have . flown the XV-15. It is significantly ferent in size and capability, but at least the mechanics of flying it are quite similar. I think either comrnun1 could make the transition fairly eaS1^e Obviously, on the fixed-wing side, Harrier pilots would have the advam tage, because they’re used to hover - At present, we plan to continue a helicopter-type syllabus for MV-22 F lots in basic training. We are study! - exactly how we’re going to do that- .jj will not be the current syllabus; it be modified somewhat. We may g1 them more time in turbo prop aire possibly multi-engine turbo prop,
•S'larinc Corps has stated that the reason °r moving the amphibious task force
er out to sea and for looking at
the
*6]
lce the speed and three or four times
r°ceedings: The Commandant of the
farth,
l^s innovation is the threat posed by j*recision-guided munitions. Are you °°king at any new escort techniques 0r the Osprey that might differ from 0<iay’s helicopter assault doctrine— j^\v ways of getting in to the beach? 'tinan: We will need an escort of s°me sort to go with the MV-22. Curtly we have the AH-1W, with lim- lted range and speed, for shorter mis- Sl°ns; and we have the AV-8B, which js just coming on line itself, to provide kind of capability. So we’re confi- Cr|t we have taken care of the escort Mission. However, there may be an ^Ven better way of doing it in the next ^ °r 15 years.
In addition, the range and flexibility
the MV-22 will give us many op-
,l0ns that we don’t "have today. With tv J range, we can go around fixed de- ttses. We will be able to fly as low ^ helicopters do today, but faster and Jhheter. We’ll still be detectable, and if j,e happen to run across antiair de- enses, they’ll be able to take a shot at s; But there’s no way to go to war : 'thout taking some hits, so we will j^t have to face that. Overall, the flex- 'hty we will have in being able to me from over the horizon—in being j! je to hit anywhere along 600 or 700 Ues of coastline from 200 or 300 "es at sea—will greatly complicate hny enemy’s defensive problem. If he °aPpens to be in our way and he has weapons, he can use them on us. But now we have a much more survivable aircraft—more maneuverable, faster, quieter, with an infrared signature that is less than the helicopter it replaces. Take all these together, along with the survivability built into this type of air frame, and we should be able to cross the beach with fewer losses. We’ve predicted that in all of our studies. We will have the ability to go places where the enemy cannot defend and land in almost any area that a helicopter can get into today. So this development, in conjunction with the landing craft air cushion [LCAC] and other new vehicles, should be a significant improvement in our capability. But we are still not bulletproof.
Proceedings: We understand, though, that in one test they fired a 23-mm. cannon into the fuselage, tried to knock a wing off—and couldn’t do it.
Pitman: That’s correct. The new composite design has given us structural strength that we couldn’t have before now. We have other composite aircraft or aircraft with major composite parts, the AV-8B being one; and others are coming on line. So that is part of our increased survivability. Obviously, there are still places where a hit would damage it severely and cause it to be forced down, at least. A hit in one of the engines might cause that. But the engines are separated—about as far apart as you can get them; so are the rotor systems. And the rotor blades are also made of composite materials, so that will give us additional survivability. The fuel tanks are inerted so they will not support combustion, as they do in today’s helicopters. And the heavy moving parts—the rotors and transmissions—are located outboard, where they cannot crush the troop compartment in a crash. Finally, the composite material itself can withstand more damage than regular aircraft metals, and can also be more easily repaired, in many cases.
Proceedings: At rollout, the MV-22 looked much larger than the CH-53E, yet when it is actually spotted on a flight deck or hangar deck, it won’t take as much room. Why?
Pitman: Some super engineering went into the Osprey’s design. For storage, it can fold itself practically into its own footprint. The wings rotate 90° over the fuselage, the engines rotate down into the airplane position, and the rotors fold up—so it just about covers its own fuselage. This allows it to take much less space than the CH-53E, which, of course, has external tanks and is just big to begin with.
The MV-22 was sized for its combat mission, which is carrying troops, and will in fact carry 24. It also can carry a
10.0- pound external load, to handle some of our vehicles and other gear that we have to move to the beach and inland.
Proceedings: Does it take a long time to prepare for launch?
Pitman: No more time than a regular helicopter. Spreading the wings and raising the rotors is done in 90 seconds—about the same time it takes to unfold a helicopter. Then it’s a matter of starting engines, which is also simpler today because they’re automatic— automatic fuel controls and all sorts of things we didn’t have before. Earlier, when we had to tune them carefully to get them on line, it took a lot more time. But this is just normal progress. Our F/A-18s start much quicker than older fighters. It’s all automatic—press a button and it starts. After it gets going, a green light comes on, and you’re on your way.
Proceedings: In terms of shipboard compatibility, do you see the MV-22 being used on all ships that carry helicopters today, including the improvised platforms used in the Persian Gulf? Pitman: Not quite. Fully loaded, it’s going to weigh up in the 45,000- to
55.0- pound range. That’s with the full weight of fuel and troops and a full combat load. So some of the small boys will not be able to handle it. It’s much heavier than a Cobra, a Huey, and some of the other aircraft that can
land on the smaller ships. The ASW helicopters—SH-60s—are much lighter and can get on the smaller decks. The barges that are in use in the Persian Gulf could not accept the MV-22. You would have to keep the rotors turning to keep the aircraft’s weight off the deck—if you were even able to get in, that is. But any helicopter platform that can take the CH-53E will be able to take the MV-22.
Proceedings: In terms of Marine Corps aviation, what are we getting from our participation in Persian Gulf operations? Are we picking up any “lessons learned” in combat techniques or about operations with other services?
Pitman: We’re gaining some very good joint experience, working with the Army. We have both ground and air units working as part of the joint task force. The Army has done a fine job with its helicopters there, first the MH-60s and AH-6s, then more recently, the OH-58D+—a lightweight Aircraft that can operate off the barges. They have the modem forward-looking infrared systems, and night-vision goggles—as we do—so they are very capable aircraft.
As we’ve watched the Army’s progress, we’ve tried to upgrade our own capability. We’re operating at night over the water, a very difficult situation for any helicopter, and we’ve had to reequip some of our helicopters. Night-vision goggles are fine as long as the area has some light—either moonlight, or light from the oil rigs or ships, or what have you. But the minute you turn away from that kind of lighting on a poor night—even with night-vision goggles—you have a hard time telling how high you are above the water. Tactically, it’s best to be near the water—so if they decide to shoot at you, you have a better chance of getting away. The combination of low altitude and poor night vision puts you very close to having a problem.
All you have to do is lose track of yourself for a few seconds, and you’re in the drink. So we are trying to get forward-looking infrared put on all of our aircraft, so we can tell better where
Until the first MV-22 squadrons stand up in the early 1990s, the Marines’ heavy tactical lift requirement will be borne solely by the CH-53E Super Stallion, with its 16-ton mission payload.
we are over the water and operate effectively under all lighting conditions.
Proceedings: How many flight hours are Marine aviators getting, on the average, per month?
Pitman: Along with the Navy, we are holding the line to keep to an average of 20 to 25 hours per pilot. That sounds like a wide span, but it varies with the aircraft type and the level of training of the particular unit. We’re striving to get 25 hours per month per pilot across the board, on the average, and we feel quite confident that if we stay in the 22- to 25-hour area with our pilots, we’ll be able to handle all the different tasks we might be assigned.
We’ve increased the training requirements for nisht operations. If we’re going to survive in any kind of combat—not only the Persian Gulf we’ll have to operate at night extensively. This is more involved than just getting additional night flying hours. We’ll have to have the systems and the aircraft that make it easier and safer to fly at night. In addition to that, we have to be able to keep our bases and training areas open at night, which we haven’t done in the past. In the summer, it’s very difficult because of Per' sonnel shortages and because bases close at 2200. So we have to make a lot of adjustments in our training schedules.
During a normal deployment now, 7® re running 90% mission-capable, 'he fleet average runs down around or 72%, but that includes all air
Maintaining the aircraft? ntman: No. Those who went before u’s in the past four or five years, recognized that we had to put money into program to buy spare parts and to candle the depot overhauls. That’s been taken care of. Right now, our availabil- is the best it’s ever been in the history of Marine aviation. In fact, naval Nation, across the board, is running Very high in readiness, both on board ^ip and at home bases. If you have enough spares, you don’t have to can- nit>alize parts from other aircraft, and y°u save a lot of expense and down iinte.
craft, counting some that are awaiting long-term parts. But the operational units that are forward deployed are running at very high readiness.
As the money gets tighter, flight hours will be harder to find. And, of course, the price of fuel never seems to stop going up. Along with that, the cost of depot overhaul and maintaining the spare parts inventory is still significant. So we have to watch this carefully.
Proceedings: The heavy operational emphasis and the emphasis on night training seem to be right in line with General Gray’s philosophy about rekindling the warrior capability within the Marine Corps. Most of the evidence we’ve seen so far has been in upgraded infantry-type training. Are there other initiatives that are lapping over into Marine Corps aviation as well?
Pitman: Yes. In addition to getting much more experience at night than we had anticipated several months back, we’re extending ourselves into more dangerous types of flying—lower altitudes, lights-out operations, things of that nature—that we’ll need to do if we’re going to survive and conduct some of the operations that we may have to conduct in the future.
Along with this, we’re making more use of fixed-wing aircraft and KC-130s with deployed forces. When a Marine Expeditionary Unit [MEU] goes on deployment now, it is supported by a package of KC-130s and AV-8s. They’re on call to train with and work
this wooded Harrier hideaway suggests, the AV-8B remains committed to close air support—but one day, it could be flying escort missions for the Osprey, as well.
up for deployments with these MEUs.
In the past, they were generally available but they hadn’t, in fact, trained and worked together much as a team. Now that’s different, for every one of our MEUs that goes out. I think this gives us an added capability.
The helicopters have done a lot of work in special types of operations in support of ground units. The deploying units are designated farther in advance now. The battalion landing team and its supporting squadron learn how each other operates sooner, so they are a better team when they deploy. Earlier, they had just several weeks together, to fly around with each other and discuss what they were doing, and then they’d deploy and really get to know each other about halfway through their six- month cruise. Now that’s totally changed.
Proceedings: Earlier, you alluded to the over-the-horizon assault capability. Now it’s becoming possible, with both the LCAC and the Osprey potentially able to work in tandem. That would seem to create a whole new range of problems in operating over extended distances, in terms of command and control and fire support and in getting across a defended beach. Do you see any basic changes in amphibious doctrine coming out of this?
Pitman: I think doctrine is going to remain relatively unchanged. This new gear really gives us added flexibility, to be able to outdistance the enemy and to get ashore more rapidly and safely. However, greater distances do create new problems—in communications and resupply, for example. Even though you can get ashore quicker, you still have a long way to move things. However, I think we’ve found that the amphibious objective area is expanding. The outer ring of the amphibious task force is moving farther outward, to the point where we’re talking about starting an assault from 400 miles away, as opposed to today’s maximum of 50 miles—on a good day, with the right sea state and everything else ideal.
Now we’re talking about bringing in the MV-22 easily from 400 miles. The LCACs can come in from 50 miles,
100 miles if they have to, and hit all kinds of beaches—it doesn’t have to be just the ideal beach anymore. Those sorts of things will give us great new capabilities. But we’ve got to improve our navigation systems, among other things, because you can’t afford to be in the wrong place at the wrong time on that extended battlefield. That’s part of the expense of the aircraft we talk about today.
The MV-22 is not just a replacement helicopter. It’s a fixed-wing aircraft, as well as a helicopter. It navigates itself and it knows exactly where it is, within ten meters. It will be able to operate at night using its forward-looking infrared system. All of these features are in
Proceedings: Is there any question we haven’t asked you that you would like to answer?
Pitman: I’d just like to say that I finC* Marine aviation really is in pretty g00 shape. We’ve modernized our force with AH-lWs and we’re converting many of our older Cobras to the W configuration. We’ve got the AV-8B and the F/A-18 out there. We have the A-6, which is comparable to the Navy’s A-6, and we’re following that on as a member of the A-12 team- 8U the linchpin to this whole thing is the MV-22, because of the dramatic step forward in capability that it provides- Many people compare it to the first J engine or to the arrival of the helicop' ter on the scene. Having observed it and looked at its capabilities for some time, I believe that’s an accurate description. The quantum jump forwaro that we’ll get out of tilt-rotor technology is well worth the effort. We’re pleased to be part of it as a joint pr°' gram, and we think that it’s really going to help us.
Our aircraft are in better material shape than they’ve been in the past-'' not because we’ve done anything sPeC tacular, but because we’ve properly funded our maintenance system f°r some time now, and it’s beginning t0 pay off.
At the same time, we’ve worked 0 our safety program to reduce our acC^ dent rate, and we’re continuing to vV on this. We have improved over the past several years, but we still have way to go.
I think the air-ground team, as a whole, is much healthier as a result o the interactions we’ve had with the expeditionary units at all levels. The^ training is more realistic. We’re spe> ing the money on it that we’ve been hesitant to spend in the past. And ^ are truly taxing aircrews and groun crews to work to the maximum to make sure it all comes together in s r port of the ground Marine. That is purpose of our existence. We have ^ other reason to be here than to supp the infantryman on the ground. We know that, and we hope he knows
Proceedings: Thank you for having u Pitman: My pleasure. Good to have you down here anytime.