Comments on: V-22 Readiness Rates OK: Conway

By: Rambo

Rambo — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:20:03 +0000

Yo ! .… Youz people talkin’ bad about the V22 must work for Sikorsky or somethin’.

By: Parry HM1(SW/FMF) Retire

Parry HM1(SW/FMF) Retire — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:58:00 +0000

Maj Dent,

Sir,

I understand to philosophy of let see what the numbers say. I also understand maintenance numbers can be cooked to meet the mission. I know because I have flown in Phrogs that were only 80% operational, landed while the transmission ate itself. When you’re with the Marine Corps if your stuff breaks down the feel they gave you LPC (leather Personnel Carriers – Boots) use them. Know what we still completed the mission. I would like nothing more then to see the expected numbers and believe the engineers. However I was with the grunts, I flew with the wing, and down inside I love the phrog (CH46). I was a front line guy, I never like it back at HQ to many college educated guys playing the game stratigo on the big map and knowing those are the same guys I am with. The loss of human life is expected in our line of work and we knew what we were getting into. This is not the old college try here “hey guy lets throw the ball out there and go for it”. This aircraft need to work and work well the day it arrived in new river, Not Iraq. You can’t tell me that it working in the field because the military channel has already had office stating on video, that the field commander will not give them missions. The field commanders do not trust or willing to put their lives on the line to use this platform (hard to be the tip of the spears when you and your men crash on the way to the fight). Weather this is self preservation or true concern for their men, well I keep that opinion for my fellow grunts. All this talk aside sir the truth is this thing either needs to be fixed or shelve before we have to see good intentioned officers in front of congress explaining for all the live lost not how may cracked airframe are in Amarillo.

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:57:07 +0000

Maj. Dent,

What happened to that hearing to present the truth? I was supposed to happen last week. Did the Bell-Boeing and Marine Corps lobby crack down on the Congressmen? If so, I’m sure the Marine Corps will post the basic data on its website to prove nothing is amiss? Right? Toss that idea at your Generals and let us know.

By: jimbo

jimbo — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:31:06 +0000

All this speculation.. geez jus wait for the stats to be released…

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:34:14 +0000

Caveman: Seriously. I know that it’s romantic to think about “stand and be still t’the Birkenhead Drill”, but that’s not the same thing as suggesting that the Marines are a suicide squad.

By: Caveman

Caveman — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:08:41 +0000

Hey Trophy–this is not the early days of aviation when things were hit and miss. The science and computers are much further advanced. Today’s Marines “know what they sign up for” –does not mean they want to get into aircraft that are unsafe just to test aerodynamics.
The Marine Corps would not put into service an unsafe aircraft. The “maintainers” are the best and brightest. They understand they ultimately support the grunt and his mission. No aircraft in recent times performs as advertised–the question is: Is it good enough? I am a Phrog guy and have serious reservations about the Osprey (and it being the best choice to replacing the CH-46). Maj Dent is right that time and stats will tell.

By: Maj. Eric Dent

Maj. Eric Dent — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 01:39:11 +0000

To all posters,
When the House Committee (Oversight and Government Reform) eventually get to the hearing on V-22, they will show everyone the four binders (500+ pages) of extensive data we have sent to the Sec of Defense showing the specifics of every MV-22 the Marine Corps has. There is nothing to hide from folks. Hate to burst your conspiracy bubbles, but there is nothing “juicy” about the Osprey. Readiness is still lagging at a level we’d not prefer, and there are some systems (e.g. ice protection system) on the aircraft that simply do not work consistently.
Seriously, being a critic is literally the easiest job in the world. You don’t need data, just an opinion and an Internet connection.
Let’s have a look at the numbers with some context and explanation; then some of these comments, which are probably well-intentioned, may have merit.

Respectfully,
Maj. Eric Dent

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:12:47 +0000

Lots of people citing the CH-47 as an example. It’s important to remember, though, that “it’s so old that we’ve fixed all the problems” doesn’t mean that it was a good solution (or even the only conceivable one.)

By: Springboard

Springboard — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:36:08 +0000

Open Letter to Conway and Dent:

Data talks, bull@@@@ walks.

Produce the data. There’s nothing classified here, so quit stalling and produce the data. I mean…if you can’t tell me the good news, it ain’t good news.

And, by the way, can MV-22s be used in California firefighting roles? I’ve not seen one testing with a fire-bucket lately.…Or is that classified too?

Really. This coyness…it’s like a tech version of “don’t ask don’t tell.”

By: Bill R.

Bill R. — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:58:46 +0000

With the V-22 the gains ( actual performance gains) do not exceed the risks, plus the fact that our troops could really take the money spent on this death trap /money pit and get far more utility out of it than they are getting from buying Ospreys.

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:28:42 +0000

So the Commandant had a news conference to refute claims that the V-22’s mission capable rate was poor. He admitted to problems, but refused to tell anyone what those rates are. So far as the dozen of missing V-22s, he has refused to provide a list and status of all the V-22s Congress has funded. This was denied to the GAO, a Congressional committee, and now the interested press. Something seems wrong to me.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 07:05:08 +0000

The Marine Corps says its has just 84 V-22s in service, but Congress has funded 150. That’s a big gap to explain away, which is why Maj. Dent said “nonsense” He says he will provide the reasons, later, sometime. Yeah, maybe next year or in 2020.

By: Terry

Terry — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 07:00:50 +0000

There have been many “revolutionary” aircraft that didn’t work. Read about the “tail sitter” fighters. The problem nowadays is that if something works, the politics are too strong and the careerists too committed to admit that it doesn’t work. The V-22 has been flying since 1989, and its performance is less than half of what was promised, half of what its specs say on websites.

By: yasotay

yasotay — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 01:43:03 +0000

Bill R, in 1960 you could change V-22 with CH-47A, about a million dollars and Viet Cong. In 1985 you could have changed V-22 with AH-64A or UH-60A, $20 million and $6 million and the Soviet Combined Arms Army. More fine young Americans died in CH-47A due to material failure than have died in V-22. My point to you is that your very same arguments were leveled at these paragons of rotorcraft in their early days. I’ve seen them all before. I’ve flown two of the aircraft in their early days so I have heard and read it all. Flew for twenty plus years. I will put my kids in a V-22.

By: Trophy

Trophy — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 23:09:45 +0000

The point is this is a new generation of pioneers for human technology, and that this shouldn’t come as a surprise to us all. And with pioneering new technology, there’s gonna be risks. These men and women knew the risks, they’ve done all that they could to minimize the risks. They know that no risk means no reward. And they know that there is a reward involved from the risks they take. Just like the pioneers before them: the early mariners, automotive drivers, astronauts, aviators, etc.

A simple everyday task of driving a car on a public roadway has one of the highest accidental death rate than anything else, and yet we as a society can accept the fact that car accidents can kill over 40,000 a year. Majority of which are pointless deaths resulting from drunk drivers, ill-trained drivers, inattentive drivers… you name it. So where’s the outcry there?

Instead of hounding the job that these fine men and women do and support, we should be supporting them. Because they’re doing something that few of us would want to do, but will benefit us all in the future.

We take for granted what cars, trains, planes, helicopters, ships and spacecraft provide for us. And few are thankful to the pioneers, the earliest of which faced the same kind of scrutiny and ridicule. Read up on the early days of aviation and how slowly and unwilling the majority of the militaries of the world were to embrace it. It’ll sound very similar to what the V-22 is going through today.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 22:39:48 +0000

Trophy: I’m not sure what your point is; surely we’ve moved past the point where we have to eat our own dead in order to advance the cause of aerospace research. I know that people like you really enjoy your red meat, but don’t you think maybe you’re carrying it a little far?

By: jimbo

jimbo — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:19:48 +0000

ya plus its a first of its kind… let boeing hammer out the kinks..

By: Trophy

Trophy — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:08:40 +0000

Far more had died testing the early versions of fixed-wing aircraft in the early 1900’s… and those aircraft had far less utility value, even back then. I stick to my original point.

By: Bill R.

Bill R. — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 04:25:41 +0000

Some of you folks that post these comments above state that these things are normal and therefore should be acceptable.Things like cracks to airframes and fires , how long before a bunch more of America’s finest have to die in this piece of SH** before people wise up to the fact that V-22 is just no damn good! At 70million apiece it is just a waste of taxpayer money. The V-22 does not, and never will meet up to the billing . The V-22 is not fit to go into combat. , the first time it gets into contact it’ s going to be very very BAD! The Taliban are going to love knocking these things out of the sky. I am afraid we will get too familiar with the phrase” Osprey down” .

By: Trophy

Trophy — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 02:01:48 +0000

One of the faults of our American society is our intense desire for instant gratification.

That’s what makes military aircraft projects such an easy target for politicians/officers wanting to gain political influence and credibility. Because the people generally don’t understand that aircraft naturally have growing pains and take time to get fully operational.

The powered fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft made their first flights at around the same time period (1903 and 1907), but the helicopter took 35 years longer to see it’s first mass-produced aircraft. Rotary flight already proved troublesome enough, but now trying to combine both fixed and rotary wing aircraft with tilt-rotors. In 1955 the first tilt-rotor flew, and then finally entered mass production in 1997… forty years. Of course we’re still working out the bugs, we’re still working on some design flaws with the F-15, F-16 and A-10’s… even 30 years after they were OK’d for production.

Military fixed-wing aircraft had numerous issues about their utility in the early 1900’s. They had problems with maintenance; early propeller designs had huge reliability issues among others. They were a logistical nightmare. They had a low payload; bombs were rarely carried on early WWI aircraft, and even then they were small. They faced the exact same type of criticisms as tilt-rotors are facing today. Where would we be today if we abandoned the concept of military aviation back then?