Comments on: Regs Hinder Osprey Defenses

By: CombatCrewChief

CombatCrewChief — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 18:46:11 +0000

The only things the V-22 does better then any other airframe is suck and cost a lot doing it. It’s prop rotors are T-rex forearms. It’s lift capability is equal to an H-60. It flies as fast as an H-53. It can’t fly at altitude and it chugs along in thick sea-level air. It takes 5 minutes to land with little defensive armament. It has corrupted generals and made liars out of maintenance crews.

So we have a Blackhawk that flies a few knots faster, has a single tailgunner, blinds crew chiefs and restricts pilots from maneuvering. It costs 5 times as much as “legacy” airframes and is killing the honest culture of USMC aviation maintenance.

Thx Boeing. Hope your bonuses are worth it.

By: Daryl

Daryl — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:25:56 +0000

They’ll have to do a lot of hoop jumping this year to keep probs under wraps. More stuff keeps bubbling up, like this.

http://www.g2mil.com/V-22finding.htm

By: bob

bob — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:57:15 +0000

Jim good to see you so involved in the discussion. People stop bickering back and forth, its rediculous. When are you all going to realize this is about “MONEY” and not the war or the Americans dying over sea’s. I have been working on this aircraft for 11 years and its made me a weatlhy man. Look at this from the bigger picture. This aircaft has made a lot of people wealthy and if you try to take that away we have people on the inside to stop you.
Bell/Boeing/Ratheon/Moog/Rolls Royce trust me all the heavy hitters are on board. Is there anything anyone can to about “NO!” so deal with it people its not going away, too much money involved already. People educate yourself on the government polics involved. I one of these crash tomorrow with 15 Devil Dogs and civlian reporters onboard it doesn’t matter it will continue to fly. We have killed over 27 marines already and it still flies and it will kill more miliary workers in the future, thats the nature of the beast and there is no ethics in making money so get over it or get onboard and make some money, I did and thats the bottom line.

By: Musket 104

Musket 104 — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:56:22 +0000

Nutchbutter has it right.

Against IR MANPADS, “expendables” (aka “flares”) and maneuver like he**! Give that little guidance package something to chew on while you get out of the way. I just might (unintentionally) violate NATOPS or overstress the bird, but consider the alternative. It’s going to run out of poop pretty quick — it’s not a rocket ship that can chase you all over the sky.

Against RPG or guns in an LZ, different threat and differerent tactics.

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:09:34 +0000

Nuchbutter: Well, seems that ‘Er was gettin’ Got Dun just fine with the old kit, which leaves one wondering exactly what the V-22 has brought to the party.

By: 0IFOEFshepard

0IFOEFshepard — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:04:04 +0000

JIM,
Come on, the fight the Marines are having right now in OEF need helo support.
We have made over 140 Ospreys ‚we should be able to field a couple at least to put off the critics.

By: Nuchbutter

Nuchbutter — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 00:42:23 +0000

um, that’s new Hueys are cheaper than Ospreys…

By: Nuchbutter

Nuchbutter — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 19:41:59 +0000

Yes, but all the above footprints are quite a bit bigger than a Blackhawk or Seahawk, by more than double. The new Hueys for the USMC will imho outperform even the Blackhawks, and cost considerably less. So we will maintain great capability that flies under the radar of public scrutiny.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:59:07 +0000

The V-22 is the same/similar as the 53’s and 47’s…170 X 170

By: Nuchbutter

Nuchbutter — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:42:29 +0000

Hmmm. So why is it important to yank the nose back to avoid MANPADS? The SACT philosophy in CSAR/SOF insert-extract is "Manuever, Expend, Egress". For those of us who enjoy that rarefied air just above the treetops, the manuever part that follows an IR missle warning includes descending, turning nose-to-threat, ACCELERATING, and masking. I don't know who this guy is that got everybody worked up about not being able to pitch the Osprey on its tail right now, but if Betty's bitchin' about a bottle rocket shot at my bottom while I'm on short final, the LAST place I'm putting my cyclic is in my lap. If you've never seen a Buttonhook turn on goggles, just imagine that patch of ground 20 yards behind your butt come twisting back around across your nose. I couldn't begin to tell you how an Osprey performs this maneuver, but done properly in a helo, it looks dramatic but in reality is smooth and puts little stress on the airframe. While the Osprey's footprint would preclude it from touching down in many confined areas (such as can be expected in forested or mountainous terrain), section tactics can adjust. In my community, we rarely put both birds on the ground simultaneously. One is usually topcover. High threat environments get mitigated to medium through the strike package; otherwise we hang out 'til the mission coordinator clears us in. I really am disgusted with all the hand-wringing over whether or not it's dangerous to fly an Osprey into enemy territory. This "zero-defect" mentality has strangled the mission-accomplishment right out of the once-mighty US military. Sometimes, you just have to Git 'Er Done.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:50:48 +0000

Osprey isn’t in Iraq because Marines are drawing down from Iraq.

At least 2 squadrons had deployed there and rotated, one of them at least twice.

The most recent deployment ended late this spring.

I really doubt V-22 will be cancelled.

Speaking of UH1Y’s, weren’t they recently grounded?

By: Davy

Davy — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:20:20 +0000

Congress has bought the Corps 156 MV-22s. How many are in Iraq? None. How many are in Afghanistan? None. Okinawa? None. Aboard ship? 10. Sounds like a problem to me.

Some think that every idea dreamed up in the Pentagon will work, given enough time and money. At one time, bad ideas were dropped, which happened to the V-22 in the early 1980s. However, corruption prevailed, and this is what the Corps is stuck with. As that CV-22 salesman/Boeing pilot admitted above, they have problems with parts breaking that are no supposed to break.

Suppose you bought 156 new taxis to replace your 40-year old ones that were ready for use 85% of the time. However, your new taxis cost twice as much to operate, burn six times more fuel, and are broke down half the time. Meanwhile, your taxi salesmen keeps sending you bills to upgrade your new taxis to fix problems, and assures you this is worth it because the new taxis are faster.

Cancel the V-22 today, and buy more UH-1Ys and CH-53Ks to provide double the lift at half the cost with twice the reliability.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:14:53 +0000

Shep,

You can only build airplanes so fast and with that u can’t snap you fingers and have 10 operational VMM’s overnight.

By: 0IFOEFshepard

0IFOEFshepard — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:16:41 +0000

Roger that Jim , what is the reason for lack of coverage

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:22:57 +0000

OIFOEFshepard,

The USMC was not going to be able to deploy TWO VMM until the end of this year. By the end of the year there will be enough VMM so that one will be in AFG and the other will be afloat.

By: 0IFOEFshepard

0IFOEFshepard — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:26:03 +0000

OKAY its great, why is it not in Afghanistan doing caseevac for the MEU right now today????

The Marines are taking casaulties and waiting for a ride in a 1971 SEAKNIGHT.

All the rest of this blog is about as worthless as a killed in action apology because you bleed out waiting for a beatdown 2nd generation helo package .…
And the men will be waiting.…

By: Tony Conner

Tony Conner — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:21:25 +0000

I thought the V-22 was going to be cancelled years ago, this is tricky technology. The combat situation empahsizes what the congress and GAO doesn’t, that the V-22 actually is performing the missions. The main issues left for the V-22 now are reliability of parts in a combat situation. Too much money has been spent to get the turkey off the ground, but now that it is there, keep it!

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:42:34 +0000

Byron,

The V-22 doesn’t HAVE to land to unload its troops. It can do so via FASTROPE, RAPPEL, HALO, STATIC LINE or HOIST.

The only place for a weapon the V-22 is NOT ONLY the underside. A .50cal or 7.62 can be place on the ramp.

You are right about the RPG. However, the V-22 is no less stationary than any other helicopter in an LZ.

Norman,

I haven’t seen a video with 6 V-22 landing in an LZ. However, I have been in a 4 ship landing in a brownout LZ and there are pictures of that.

With regard to VRS and the 250′ limit. First off the 250′ limit doesn’t exist because of VRS. It exist s because a wake turbulence effect in tilt-rotor that is known as “ROLL OFF”. The 250′ limit is during flight. As each leading aircraft lands the following aircraft can land at close as they need to. BTW, the minimum LZ requirement for a 53 is 170 X 170…which happens to be the minimum for the V-22…weird. And guess what…we don’t have to worry about a tail rotor.
.

By: ReconTeam

ReconTeam — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:50:20 +0000

Herbert you sound like a typical liberal

First the F-35 is not two decades newer than the F-22, and the F-22 is superior in several key areas. Haven’t you or any of the F-22 bashers for that matter read of the hi-lo mix?

Second the ABL is not a fraud and if anything is an important proof-of-concept/experimental aircraft for the future

Third, why the hell don’t the jobs of those working on the F-22 matter, but the jobs of others do? What do you mean they should have to find work in the “real” private sector. Gee I am sure they will be glad once they lose their jobs for the sake of some ineffective liberal social program.

By: Herbert

Herbert — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:32:13 +0000

Obama plans to spend more than Bush, which is also more than the rest of the world combined. How is that “Dismantling”

The ABL is a fraud that should have been canceled years ago.

The F-35 is two decades newer than the F-22 designed in the 1980s.

I suppose some who profit off the F-22 worry they will be laid off and must find work in the real private sector.

The millions of unemployed Americans wonder how better it would be if the USA didn’t spend trillons to wage war aboard.