Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Posted: 10/3/2007 5:12:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2007 5:13:32 AM EST by brasidas]
What an honor!

V-22 Osprey: A Flying Shame

Time:
It's hard to imagine an American weapons program so fraught with problems that Dick Cheney would try repeatedly to cancel it
Link Posted: 10/3/2007 5:15:37 AM EST
How long after the photo did this one crash?
Link Posted: 10/3/2007 5:16:51 AM EST
I though this was about our Osprey21



Link Posted: 10/3/2007 5:18:30 AM EST
And it casts a cross as a shadow
Link Posted: 10/3/2007 5:18:45 AM EST
GOD DAMN I HATE TIME!!! ARRRGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 10/3/2007 5:25:55 AM EST
You can not argue the facts that the program has has some serious problems and some serious deaths associated with it. Remember the crash in 2000? 19 killed in Yuma IIRC...

The 46 is old, tired and has a 200+ miles range as compared to the 2000+ mile ranges (with plugging). The lift and speed is needed and better than a 53....

We had crashes of the B1B and every other platform before it went into service. Even the F22...Politics have been a PITA with this one.

I saw it fly in Cherry Point, I did some test runs of tankering at Pax river. It is a an awesome but VERY dynamic aircraft.

Link Posted: 10/3/2007 5:28:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:
You can not argue the facts that the program has has some serious problems and some serious deaths associated with it. Remember the crash in 2000? 19 killed in Yuma IIRC...

The 46 is old, tired and has a 200+ miles range as compared to the 2000+ mile ranges (with plugging). The lift and speed is needed and better than a 53....

We had crashes of the B1B and every other platform before it went into service. Even the F22...Politics have been a PITA with this one.

I saw it fly in Cherry Point, I did some test runs of tankering at Pax river. It is a an awesome but VERY dynamic aircraft.



We'd never have the Harrier in the fleet with today's media.
Link Posted: 10/3/2007 5:33:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2007 5:33:49 AM EST by ZitiForBreakfast]

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:
You can not argue the facts that the program has has some serious problems and some serious deaths associated with it. Remember the crash in 2000? 19 killed in Yuma IIRC...

The 46 is old, tired and has a 200+ miles range as compared to the 2000+ mile ranges (with plugging). The lift and speed is needed and better than a 53....

We had crashes of the B1B and every other platform before it went into service. Even the F22...Politics have been a PITA with this one.

I saw it fly in Cherry Point, I did some test runs of tankering at Pax river. It is a an awesome but VERY dynamic aircraft.



We'd never have the Harrier in the fleet with today's media.


Man...the AV8..remember all the crashes in the mid-late 90's? Every week they were dropping out of the sky. Some ejected, others rode them down. Every AV8 pilot had a WIDWMKR license plate. We used to line up on every run way and do a all station hands FOD walkdown to see what they were sucking up.

The 'thought' at first it was the tiny metal brush pieces left in the surface from the vacum trucks...
Link Posted: 10/3/2007 5:38:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2007 6:11:25 AM EST by brasidas]
We get Time at work and I just skimmed the article. Typical surface treatment. It goes over the disasters and shortcuts in the development program. They complain a lot about the fact that it can not autorotate and only mounts a .30 in the rear (rather than a .50 in the front). Maybe those issues are less important now that the thing is off the drawing board and finally being deployed; I doubt they are going to do a lot of hot landings with a $100 million + aircraft.

I think the real question is whether there is a better alternative for a medium range VTOL aircraft. The article does not go into that at all.

One interesting thing I did not know is that 1/3 of the AV-8B Harriers have crashed since they were introduced.
Link Posted: 10/3/2007 5:42:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/3/2007 5:48:59 AM EST by Aerospace_Engineer]


So 10 V-22s are going to war this month, each with just a lone, small 7.62-mm machine gun mounted on its rear ramp. The gun's rounds are about the same size as a .30-06 hunting rifle's, and it is capable of firing only where the V-22 has been — not where it's going — and only when the ramp used by Marines to get on and off the aircraft is lowered. That doesn't satisfy Jones. "I just fundamentally believe than an assault aircraft that goes into hot landing zones should have a nose-mounted gun," Jones told TIME. "I go back to my roots a little bit," the Vietnam veteran says. "I just like those kinds of airplanes to have the biggest and best gun we can get, and that to me was a requirement." He doesn't think much of the V-22's current weapon: "A rear-mounted gun is better than no gun at all, but I don't know how much better."


O Rly? "...just a lone, small 7.62-mm machine gun"



I wonder what they would call it if this small 7.62-mm machine gun was owned by a private citizen...?

It's so small and so cute, isn't it?
Link Posted: 10/3/2007 5:51:30 AM EST
The author of the Time article about all the so called and imaginary problems with the V-22 is on and the same author who has given the V-22 hell on pages of the Fort Worth Star Telegram. Typical rabble rouser.

Who knows which Aircraft Manufacturer's lobbyist's pocket Cheney had his hand in at the time he was so adamately anti V-22..... Sikorsky? Who knows, but don't go hunting with him.

Link Posted: 10/3/2007 5:51:53 AM EST


ost
Link Posted: 10/5/2007 2:53:50 AM EST
I think someone may have posted the full text in another thread. Oh well. It's disgusting really- the author didn't contact Bell (or Textron, their parent company), Boeing, or any branch of the military, to get information for the article. Gee, how fair do you think this article was supposed to be?


Anyway...


Lexington Issue Brief discusses "Time" magazine piece on V-22

Note: The following was published in the Lexington Issue Brief. Dr. Loren B. Thompson wrote the article.

There's sad news from our nation's capital this week friends. It turns out that the Marine Corps has been run for a quarter century by incompetent leaders who have worked closely with corrupt members of Congress to put young Marines in aircraft that will get them killed. The only thing that can save us from this cabal is courageous investigative reporting that reveals the rot destroying our defense establishment.

Oops -- my mistake! I just described the screenplay for Oliver Stone's next movie. The sad news from Washington I meant to discuss was the continuing erosion of Time Magazine's relevance in the modern world, as reflected in its goofy cover story this week about the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor that the Marine Corps and other military services are buying. Time Magazine used to be a major force in American journalism, but now it is searching desperately for readers in a news market crowded with more engaging alternatives. Faced with the same extinction that claimed sister publication Life Magazine, Time is resorting to an old journalistic tool to hold market share -- sensationalism.

Since it's hard to be sensational if you have to report all the facts, Time reporter Mark Thompson has elected to include only the bad stuff. Unfortunately, this results in an account of the V-22's development that could only be true if the Marine Corps had been run by idiots for the last 25 years -- idiots who don't care about the fate of their fellow Marines in combat. It isn't really necessary to rebut this ridiculous thesis, because the V-22 is deploying for combat in Iraq and we will soon have unambiguous indicators of its performance. But just for fun…

1. Time says the V-22 was so bad that even defense secretary Dick Cheney wanted to cancel it. Actually, Cheney killed a hundred major weapons programs in four years at the Pentagon, and V-22 was the one program he couldn't convince Congress to eliminate.

2. Time says the V-22 has suffered half a dozen major mishaps during development claiming 30 lives. That's true, but it fails to mention that the CH-46 helicopter the Osprey will replace suffered 44 major mishaps during its first five years of service.

3. Time says the V-22 should be equipped with a forward-firing gun to perform its assault support role. That will come as news to the military, since no assault support aircraft in the joint fleet carries a forward-firing gun.

4. Time says V-22 lacks the "autorotation" capacity that allows helicopters to descend to a survivable landing if engines fail. Well duh: V-22 isn't a helicopter. However, it has more unpowered glide capability than any chopper in the fleet.

5. Time says the latest version of V-22 is only ready to fly 62% of the time. The real mission-capable rate is 70% -- not bad for a new aircraft, and much better than the aging helicopters the Air Force uses for search and rescue in Iraq.

I could go on, but what's the point? There's no market for good news about weapons systems. But you're still going to be hearing a lot about the V-22 in Iraq, because any aircraft that combines the speed and range of airplanes with the vertical agility of helicopters will change the way we wage war.

Link Posted: 10/5/2007 3:16:02 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/5/2007 3:16:57 AM EST


They buzz around town here every now and then. They make a distinctive sound as they fly.

Link Posted: 10/5/2007 3:20:33 AM EST
Typical ignorant Time hit piece. They're looking for long term consequences too...(It's all Bush and the Republicans' fault!)
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 2:40:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By ZitiForBreakfast:
www.eis.na.baesystems.com/video/pdf/remote_guardian_system.pdf


That looks pretty cool, although I'm surprised there's space for it. It also looks like it would have to be stowed for landing.



As for the Time piece, another rebuttal:


October 3, 2007

TIME Magazine Letters
Time & Life Building
Rockefeller Center
New York, N.Y. 10020

Dear Editor:

TIME's cover article, "V-22 Osprey: A Flying Shame," which appeared on September 28, 2007, offers an outdated, sensationalistic, and wholly inaccurate view of the V-22 program. It is time to separate fact from fiction.

Since its return to flight status on May 29, 2002, the V-22 has accumulated more than 25,929 accident-free total flight hours, of which more than 22,550 were operational flight hours. It has experienced more thorough testing than probably any military aircraft in the U.S. inventory. Documented evidence has shown that the V-22 is 50 percent more productive than the classic CH-46 helicopter it will replace. Using equal cost comparisons, more than 17 independent studies and four cost operational effectiveness analyses have shown that the V-22 is the most affordable and cost-effective solution to the Marine Corps medium lift requirement.

Contrary to the author's statements, there were no "short cuts" taken during testing. Further, there were no restrictions placed on pilots as a result of the Marana mishap. The rate of descent limit remains the same. Vortex ring state (VRS) or power settling, the leading cause of that mishap, occurs when an aircraft has a low rate of forward airspeed and a high rate of descent. This affects all rotary winged aircraft, but the MV-22 is less susceptible to this condition and can exit such a condition quickly should it occur. Moreover, the Osprey is the only military aircraft which has a power settling warning system. The V-22, which is not a helicopter, has never had a specific requirement for autorotation, but strictly speaking it can perform single engine autorotations with ease. Though unquestionably worse at performing twin-engines out autorotations than a helicopter, it still has a glide landing capability that no helicopter possesses.

The aircraft is highly survivable. It is faster and more maneuverable in and out of a landing zone than any other assault support aircraft in the world. As for the absence of a forward-firing weapon, no assault support aircraft in the DoD inventory has such a weapon, though the MV-22 has a ramp mounted aft-facing weapon. The MV-22 is not a gunship; it is an assault support aircraft. Mission capable rates for Block B MV-22s Corps-wide are currently near 70 percent; in recent desert testing they were 78 percent.

In sum, the Osprey is a mature, fielded technology that will change the way wars are waged. Rather than flag the MV-22 on the basis of inaccurate and outdated information, why not wait for the reports from Iraq on the aircraft's combat effectiveness?

Very truly yours,

M.E. Rhett Flater
Executive Director
American Helicopter Society

Link Posted: 10/9/2007 2:46:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By Punani:
I though this was about our Osprey21





Me too.....
Top Top