The Osprey’s never-ending P.R. problem

The Osprey’s never-ending P.R. problem

On Wednesday, as it does like clockwork every few weeks, the New York Times editorial page called for DoD to eliminate the V-22 Osprey. In a get-tough writeup about how the Obama administration must make big cuts to the defense budget, the editors wrote this: “Eliminating the Marine Corps’ costly and accident-prone V-22 Osprey vertical take off and landing aircraft would save another $10 billion to $12 billion.” The Times editorial board has been far from the only voice to target the Osprey this year; it has been in the crosshairs of white paper after white paper on the budget situation.

But as commentators and opinion-makers have continued to despise what they call an unsafe aircraft, military officials say the Osprey is meeting or exceeding all their needs. The Marine Corps and Air Force hit 100,000 hours of Osprey flight last month, and according to safety records quoted by Boeing, the Osprey has the lowest rate of Class A mishaps of any Marine rotary-wing aircraft in the past 10 years. (But beware: As we’ve learned, DoD statistics can mean anything you want.) This month, Marine Corps Ospreys made their longest-ever flights, covering some 2,800 miles from Afghanistan to Souda Bay, Crete, where they went on to rejoin the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit aboard the amphibious assault ship Kearsarge. Anecdotally, many troops love the Osprey — it has become just another airplane in the war zone.

And yet the V-22 still carries a stigma from the decades it took to develop, as well as the infamous 2000 crash that killed 19 Marines. A decade later, many people prefer to continue viewing the Osprey as a dangerous experiment, rather than an operational aircraft that has flown thousands of missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti and elsewhere. Compared to the aircraft it replaced — the Marines’ legendary, leaky old CH-46 Sea Knight — the Osprey may have to serve decades more before it can be accepted in its own right.


What do you think — is all the skepticism justified given the Osprey’s checkered past and unconventional nature? Or should people start cutting the big birds some slack?

Join the Conversation

if USA will buy fast helicopter, i’m sure the osprey would be cut

Tough to tell because between the government spin, the contractor propaganda and the evangelistic user affirmations; we don’t really have any objective basis by which to judge. Everyone in that chain is highly motivated for Osprey to be a win, and has let that desire lead them to practices which make them unreliable as an evaluator. The only way to put these questions to bed is to finally introduce some impartial testing offices and methods which serve simply to test and evaluate these new technologies relative to their predecessors, not justify service/government investment and contracting decisions.

we’ve got a zillion of those independent offices, and the general consensus is negative towards V-22. in regards to the article question, it depends what you mean by “eliminate”. Should we scrap all the V-22’s and send them to the grave? I don’t think so, we should try to get use out of them. If “eliminate” means cancel the remaining production run, this might be a good choice. I would rather produce at a minimum sustaining rate indefinitely, though, as a strategic hedge against a variety of risks. The balance of the program is $18B, according to the DoD Selected Acquisition Report, which seems I am the only person on this blog takes the time to read and quote. We could build much more defense capability with that $18B than what the V-22 provides. The real tragedy though is that we are in this situation at all. Due to the lies of the USMC & DoD and cowardly political leadership, we are stuck with V-22. It should have been eliminated decades ago.

Cancel the Osprey two decades ago? Perhaps. But today? It may be due to all of the sheer money that has been thrown at the program, or some genuine hard work on behalf of Bell and Boeing, but the aircraft is actually in service and proving itself. The Marines like it and supposedly not just Marine leadership.

Look what happened the last several times we’ve killed or cut programs (RAH-66, XM2001, F-22) based on something that is supposed to be cheaper, lighter, and better in the near-future.

Yeah, its a little too late to kill the Osprey. Perhaps I don’t pay enough attention but how is it’s performance currently in the field? If these aircraft were crashing left and right in the field then yeah kill it but I haven’t heard anything like that.

The marines knew thins was coming that is why they rushed the osprey into production regardless of all the faults.

The marines should be forced to live with the turkeys they bought — no spares no further development money, let them cannibalize the rest of the fleet to keep the 4 vehicles they have flying at any one time.

failure there is no alternative

I think the V-22 should be cancelled right away!

My qualifications? Well, I don’t really *have* any, but I read a lot of milblogs and I own everything Tom Clancy put his name on…

Point is there’s no such thing as a “fast” helicopter anymore, The limits of physics have been reached, If they cancel the V-22, they’ll just need to re-invent it later, It’s a game changer tactically. We’re only now seeing what it does that the the helos can’t. Like rescue a downed pilot and have in back safely in minutes vs. hours,

I could respect those that wanted to cancel it, to include the NYT editorial board, if they did more than re-cycle crap from a decade or more ago that wasn’t even true then. If they at least did some new fact finding I’ll pay attention to what they think. Until then they’ll be hacks in my eyes looking to cut ANYTHING in the DoD budget to preserve some social welfare handout.

so we should push past the point of diminishing returns for improved operational performance (tactics) at exorbitant cost and strategic mismanagement of resources and lying to the American public and angering Congress for decades?

Say what you want about the NYTimes article, but the Osprey accident prone? Not in its operational history! That’s just factually wrong

They didn’t rush it into production but they did try to field it without fully exploring it’s flight envelope. The V-22s flying today are totally redesigned and tested from the ones that crashed.

Based on your logic we’d still be driving chariots. I mean why push past the point of diminishing returns for the horse?
I also completely disagree with your assertions in regard to lying to the public and “angering the Congress” that funded it through the toughest time. I mean that’s where the funding is approved right?
Of course, if all you read is the BS published in the NYTs and other places what other conclusion could you arrive at. But that’s a knowledge issue on your part.

You certainly know very little about the legislative process either. If troubled programs that Congress “hates” just get rolled up in defense apps bills and passed you need to to talk with GD on the EFV, Boeing on FCS, and GE/RR on the alternate engine for JSF. But nice try.

The Corps CONTINUES to be the most trusted service on Capitol Hill. Army? Can’t find their ass with two hands when it comes to acqusition. Air Force? Still reeling from the tanker lease scandals and only recently awarded a contract that GAO didn’t throw out. Navy? Pretty good lately I’d say, but not agile enough.

Regarding the false maintenance records. It’s truly a complex issue. Did you know V-22 was the test bed for a new readiness calculation system at the time? Did you know that all things being equal, that system generated readiness data 10% lower than it otherwise would have, yet V-22 was being compared to other aircraft using the legacy system?
Can’t argue the CO was under intense pressure to get readiness data up and made a huge mistake in judgement. He should have raised hell on the circumstances he found himself in rather than pencil whip the data to get a fair assessment. Of course, you fail to mention that it was a US Marine that brought that to light so I’d at least give them credit for self-policing.

Well, That’s enough. You have zero first hand knowledge of the aircraft or the legislative process, yet you’ll always hate the Osprey. Oh well. Free country.

Well done. LOL @ people who point to Google as the source of their ‘facts’

OK, I’ll bite. What do you base your ‘4 vehicles’ statement on?

I can remember when the New York Times editorialized against the nuclear submarine and the nuclear aircraft carriers. “Safety,” “Too expensive,” “Rickover’s Foibles.”

They cost 70 milliom each , and give a 100knot more than an a CH-47. Which would rather fly in ? I pick the Chinok a very proven system and at least an auto-rotation capibility. the V-22 should have been scrapped and the F-22 extended to 400 jets. I would not want to fly in anything where we don’t have air supierority , everything we do on a modern battlefield assumes that we have air superiorty . That may not be the case if we continue to take air superiorty for granted and not invest accordingly. The V-22 is a waste of money, they should stick with the CH-47 , the gain in performance is not worth the price of a 100 knot gain and a bunch of bad baggage.

cont. As for the 313 Navy , half of the 313 ships should be submarines. Didn’t we learn anything from WWII., Subs are to aircraft carriers as aircraft carriers were to battleships. In modern warfare anything that can be seen can be sunk.. Surface ships are way to vulnerable to the air and from submarines that it does not make sense to spend the resources on them. They may be able to shoot down a couple of incomming ship missiles, but not 20 or more missiles in a coordinated attack. Submarines will be the only ship that will be able to survive and thrive in future wars.

I can remember as a kid in the 1970s reading comic books that had what is now the Osprey rescuing downed pilots in North Viet Nam as a replacement for the Jolly Green Giant equiped with AIM-7 sparrow missiles, door and ramp mounted mini guns. In 2008 I got to visit the Boeing factory producing Osprey and was surprised to see how similar it was to the CH-47 (I had visited the Chinook plant that was rebuilding to F model and new build F models) when it came to size (exclude wings etc) In Australia we have the NF-90and Tiger ARH these are aircraft like Osprey that have had funding cuts, stalled projects, lack of spare parts and a very slow and cumbersome effort that has lagged when it comes to lines of software code to be created and debugged. The honest truth is maturity of a platform takes time, modern airframes have billions of lines of code and throwing money and having ridiculous timelines with advance technolgy will only lead to failure history has plenty of examples of aircraft that were dismall and when on to long serving effect weapons platforms

The osprey is a revolutionary aircraft that offers force multiplying capabilties that no helicopter can ever achieve. Twice the speed and range, same payload, same hovering capabilities. Proven reliability in the field in a wide array of situations.

Can’t beat it.

The Osprey is the vertical lift aircraft of choice for the USMC in Afghanistan, and the recent extraordinary 90 minute rescue of the downed F-15 pilot in Libya could not have been conducted by any other aircraft. Nancy Pelosi flew on it recently on her trip to Afghanistan just as Senator Obama flew on it during his visit to Iraq before being elected as it is the safest vertical lift aircraft in a combat environment due to its ability to fly higher, faster, and further making it less vulnerable to enemy fire. It is very expensive, but it is actually the cheapest rotorcraft the Marines operate on a on a cost per seat mile basis (the true ‘cost’ used by airlines to measure efficiency). Read the recent article below for an accurate and up to date report on the V-22. http://​blogs​.forbes​.com/​b​e​l​t​w​a​y​/​2​0​1​1​/​0​4​/​0​4​/​t​h​e​-mu…

Couldn’t have been said better. Hands on knowledge of this platform seems to be slim to none in this arena…

Yeah but too bad the Marines and AFSOC don’t fly the 47, so there goes that point.

If the Osprey had a modern engine, would it have better performance? Not saying there is anything wrong with its performance as is. But could it be even better? The engine dates back to around 1980. Is it a legacy engine from the past?

You have any idea of the operational significance of a 100 kt speed advantage? Didn’t think so.

The V-22 is THE MOST survivable rotorcraft ever field by the US. NO other aircraft has received the extensive live fire testing. I’ll take quiet, fast, high flying, low IR signature, cabin isolated from the engines and transmissons, etc. If you prefer autorotative qualities when the lumbering hulk gets shot down be my guest,

Can you share the autorotative qualities of the CH-47, CH-53 E? It ain’t the same as a Jet Ranger, Basically, it gives you something to do with your hands and feet on the way down. As we said, if you can walk away for the wreakage it was a successful auto.

And you all demonstrate zero knowledge of strategy, acquisition, and systems engineering. So you are all supportive of programs that overrun costs by > 200%? And I suppose you have all thought through that the money to pay for those overruns was pulled from other programs, causing them to fail as well? And I suppose you have all thought through that committing and rewarding failure perpetuates the pattern of failure to other acquisition programs, and so we now have an unaffordable DoD that can’t accomplish missions, regardless of whether or not we have a tiltrotor that flies 400 kts?? You guys haven’t thought through much at all.

man you are really dense. a buddy of mine has a sign up in his cube “never aruge with an idiot, first they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” i’m going to follow his advice here. you are just wrong about a great many things, and are too much of a stubborn, insulting jacka– to reason with. keep on reading what i post, you have a lot to learn.

i didn’t know about that. what was the name of that readiness calculation system? you have any info to verify that I can check out?

spoken like a true amateur. tactical advantage more important that strategic failure. Has the 100 kt speed advantage changed the game in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya? No?? We are still stuck in stalemate in all 3 conflicts???

another amateur. tactical advantage more important that strategic failure. Has the 100 kt speed advantage changed the game in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya? No?? We are still stuck in stalemate in all 3 conflicts???

Tilt-Now that was a bunch of spin, and you know it. Cost is never calculated by the mile.…. but by the hour. They just found a metric that worked for the V-22. As far as flying the politicos in the V-22 because it was the “safest” is a bunch of BS. Services, all of them, have used that tactic to save embattled aircraft. I am sure if they could find a way to get the politicos in a JSF they would do at as well and claim it was the “only” aircraft available. As far as flying higher, it can’t fly any higher than any other non-pressurized aircraft and I’m certain Sen. Obama and Pelosi weren’t on a nose hose.…

Are you saying the other helicopters in service aren’t safe??? The H-47, CH-53, UH/AH-1, UH-60M’s, AH-64, OH-58 shouldn’t be flying our troops and Marines around the combat zones if that’s the case.

Are you saying the other helicopters in service aren’t safe??? The H-47, CH-53, UH/AH-1, UH-60M’s, AH-64, OH-58 shouldn’t be flying our troops and Marines around the combat zones if that’s the case.

People who argue against the V-22 need to crawl out of their holes and get a grip on the facts. Spin it how ever you want, but the facts speak for themselves. Thousands of hours in combat in one of the harshest combat environments on the planet. and fewer mishaps than anything else. Accident prone? Sez who? Where is the data?? V-22 critics — Get over it and move on.

Matt1951 — concur! How about a pair of GE38’s??? yeah baby!

Rafe– Agree it is time to move on. The money has been spent, resources invested, and the aircraft is too far along to not get it done. V-22 wasn’t my first choice to replace the workhorse, backbone of USMC vertical lift, but at this point I am happy the USMC is getting some capability out of it. However, let’s let it stand on its own merits against the competition without the need for spin?

BTW, everyone thinks the aircraft they fly is the best, most capable military aircraft ever made.…..

you should follow your own advice. you have completely ignored all arguments regarding cost and schedule performance, and the cost/schedule/performance failures impact on the rest of the acquisition & defense portfolio. you are the one that is hiding in a hole. our national security strategy depends on much more than the performance of any one system.

Don’t remember the version number of what was titled Optimized NALCOMIS.
Fixing it was a corective action directed by the oversight panel in April 2001 on V-22 noted below:
MAINTENANCE AND AVAILABILITY REPORTING NAVAL
AVIATION LOGISTICS COMMAND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
SYSTEM (NALCOMIS) (OPTIMIZED)
Recommendation: NAVAIR should correct the deficiencies and incompatibilities that
are resident in the NALCOMIS (Optimized) system as soon as possible.
Recommendation: NAVAIR should provide a set of guidelines and metric algorithms to
all organizations that use NALCOMIS readiness data for planning, budgeting and other
resource decision-making.

So the CO made a horrible decision, but his aim wasn’t to lie, it was to establish an apples an apples comparison with other T/M/S a/c. Of course, 60 Minutes protrayed him as a totally unethical lying flack for the entire USMC. A vulnerability one faces once you cross the line. He should have seen it coming.

There’s so much about this program you don’t know about this that we could fill a library with it. But keep on hating.

Please share the years and number of thousands of hours you have in military aircraft? What top levels schools have you attended? What high level staffs have you worked on and what joint doctrine have you written? Armed with that, I’ll decide if I’m an amateur compared to you.

Sorry, the V-22 isn’t single-handedly winning three mis-guided low intensity conflicts. You may have a beef with the a/c, but this is just a dumbass comment.

So it’s not hard to see why they couldn’t get V-22 right. They can’t even an information system right. We’ve got to fix the brokenness in the acquisition system (starting with poor leadership and failed concepts at the top) prior to proceeding forward with systems like V-22.

Rafe,
You nailed it. Sadly, there remain a number of people that were opposed to this A/;C that were simply unable to make the case to cancel despite a willingness to lie and miscontrue data at every turn. Remind you of anyone around here? An old Red Ribbon Panel mbr per chance?

Here is the letter from the USMC mechanic who reported his commander’s ordering them to lie about the reliability of the V-22 in order to get past Milestone 3. Wonder how this brave mechanic’s career is going now… http://​www​.defense​.gov/​n​e​w​s​/​J​a​n​2​0​0​1​/​d​2​0​0​1​0​1​1​9​m​v22… This has nothing to do with this or that information system. This has to do with reporting “down” aircraft as “mission capable” aircraft. THIS is why the Osprey will always have a never-ending P.R. problem. The Osprey has embarassed the USMC and DoD for years to come. It has enraged some members of Congress (especially Rep Towns) and has caused pain and division throughout the government.

Well, it was a new aircraft and they opted to use it as a test bed for this system. Not the V-22s fault, they were victims.

So where’s the “I’m sorry, I guess when I said the Marines were total liars from CMC on down I didn’t really understand what actually happened? I let 60 Minutes do my fact finding for me.”

wrong again. the supporters of the plane are the liars who have misconstrued data. I agree that V-22 may be operationally effective and usable now, but it should never have reached this point. The $$‘s and time fixing up its problems & overruns were taken from other programs and operations, jeopardizing those activities.

you confuse “hating” with “fact telling”. I don’t hate anything. I just expect that systems engineering & program management be done right. and when it’s not, we need to discontinue programs like that so we don’t repeat past failures. my resume includes distinguished graduate officer commissioning, magna cum laude graduate engineering degrees, experience in USAF program offices, and headquarter’s agencies planning & programming all this stuff. I have no “beef” or “vendetta” against anything. just a wise, informed view on acquisition and national security strategy. and i’m sorry for you, dumbass, if you don’t get the importance of “strategic success over “operational excellence”

You just don’t understand what you’re talking about. You have a computer counting the aircraft “down” because of an problem with the software that was “up” yesterday under the old system, Telling the kid to run it “MC” is wrong because the young Marines don’t understand the nuances. Like I said, the CO F’d it up, but I view him differently than a total liar. He was held to the stds generated bby the old readiness system and had to live with the erros of the new system. As I said, EVERY aircraft in the fleet would have dropped about 10% in readiness overnight had they been using the new system. I see an uneven playing field here.

Please don’t cite Towns, he’s a moron. HOGR doesn’t even oversee DoD. His call to kill V-22 was hollow drama.

LOL i didn’t say “total liars from CMC on down”. you are a rather poor debater if you have to resort to such a straw man. See the first hand evidence at the link below, chump.

LOL@ you chump. see the first hand evidence from the link below. actually i’ll paste it for ya here, i doubt if you ever actually care to do some real research: http://​www​.defense​.gov/​n​e​w​s​/​J​a​n​2​0​0​1​/​d​2​0​0​1​0​1​1​9​m​v22…

Okay, I think you’re a closed minder hater with no knowledge of this program and now you’re calling me a chump.

We’re just not going to see eye to eye on this. Have to leave it to other readers to decide who knows the most obout the aircraft and the history associated it. Out

LOL well if everything you said is true why did anyone get fired?? Why didn’t the Corps fight to the last about this info system reporting nuance since this was such an unfair comparison?? Oh yeah, they didn’t because what you are saying is a bunch of giberrish, while the USMC Mechanic was right on, and justice was dispensed accordingly. V-22 could be performing fine right now, but it never deserved to pass through the acquisition process in the first place. we should have never pursued the risky tiltrotor technology. all the $ and time invested in V-22 could have been expended in equally promising alternate programs. This is why there is a disciplined acquisition process in the first place. So none of us should have to fall victims to poor thinkers such as yourself. The problem is the dangerous people like yourself buck, game, cheat, and corrupt the system.

I’m the amateur? We’ll keave that for others to decide.

Now the V-22 failing to resolve the stalemale in three ill-conceived low intensity conflicts is a criticism. Seriously?
That’s just a dumbass thing to say. Are you some angry old dude that puts vodka on is cornflakes or something?

yes you are an amateur, and a dumbass, too. I’m trying to smarten you up to the higher priority of strategic performance vs operational excellence in any one area. you are not getting it — you are not responding to any of my points about how the resources invested in cost & schedule overruns on programs like the V-22 is depriving the rest of the organization of those resources, contributing to more and more failures. no i’m not angry, old, don’t drink voda, or eat cornflakes. I got years ahead of me holding the C-M-I-C accountable to their promises. you better not post any more nonsense on here, i will whip you every time.

OK you got my resume out of me now please tell me yours, to be fair, if you have a sense of fairness…

Marines spoke with OSD and the Congress, why waste time with you? You’re some self-professed expert on this program and you don’t even understand basic issue like this? I have to point out a critical fact on this maintenance issue I found on line in 5 secs? Why are youeven here?

They fired the CO and the CO’s boss because they didn’t have the moral courage to tell their chain of command to get bent. They succumbed to the pressure half-wits like you were putting on them and they sought a shortcut. They got what they deserved, But it’s far more complex than a simple lie.

and you as a half wit never addressed cost & schedule overrun, or damage caused by the V-22 to the overall acquisition portfolio and DoD mission in general. nor have you responded to the hypocrisy argument that you do not tolerate cost / schedule overruns when spending your own money, but you think it’s perfectly acceptable for DoD to do this with taxpayer money in general.

Coming from the most arrogant poster to DoD Buzz.…..you. I don’t really care what you think of my post.

right back at ya. Can’t make a single coherent response to anything based on fact, so you have to resort to childish swearing. 6 years olds make better decisions than you. I’m not arrogant, you are just wrong, stupid, insulting, arrogant, corrupt, and ignorant. Why don’t you address a FACT for a change — did you look up the SAR do you even know how to read it????

What other programs did they pull money from to fund this then?

guess no fairness from you Kent huh??

well unfortunately for you the world is much bigger than operators, customers, USMC & USAF. so as much you’d like to simplify things, it is not the end of it. DoD has to consider the bigger picture.

all the money comes from RDT&E and PROC appropriations. V-22 $$ could have been reprogrammed into most anything.

The AE 1107C was developed for the V-22 and is one of the most modern engines out there…

like what exactly?

a lot of stuff happens in secret meetings that yes are above my pay grade. you look at any struggling or canceled program. the funds for the v-22 could have been reprogrammed to help those programs succeed. The cost overruns contribute to the overall DoD acquisition portfolio insanity and perpetuates the problem.

Ok, well since your brain is much bigger than mine and I don’t know chit, I’ll just get back into my bubble and let you do all the hard thinking because you know what’s what and who’s who.

So instead of cancelling struggling and delayed programs you would rather see more money pumped into them to keep them going?

it all depends on what is salvageable and what is not. if something is doomed to fail of course i would not rather pump more money into it. you’ve used up your quota of questions until you start answering some. do you think the V-22’s cost & schedule overruns are acceptable? what is your interest in the issue here? what is your background?

and/or you could just get out of your bubble.

Awww but it’s nice in here knowing that my contributions to the program may indeed help some warfighter in the field someday. It helps me sleep better at night.

Cool. Contrary to other’s opinions on here, I don’t hate the V-22, and it may prove itself very valuable. The B-1B was a disaster of a program from an acquisition standpoint. has it served us well? absolutely. does that mean we should repeat the mistakes of past acquisitions with every new program? heck no.

Well I started working on the program when I got out of the military. I was there for 4 1/2 yrs before I left. then I worked on 2 more high profile programs that got a lot of “airplay” so to speak on sites like this. Honestly I came to the program right after the last Class A and redesigned the systems. I’m not involved in costs and I really don’t think schedules work really well for flight test. Too many variables to overlook and not really expect

cost and schedule are everything. without them you don’t have the resources to redesign systems and do flight test, which is why systems engineering & test too often get compromised.

All in all I’ve been a knuckle dragger for around 13 yrs and I’ve been around the block on flt test. It’s a nasty business and unless you’ve been part of a PMA or on the floor there’s no way to explain what it’s like on a day to day in this business.

See I understand that, but when you have a bird loaded with instrumentation that can’t get wet, and it’s been raining for a week and a half, what are you going to do? Same with unscheduled maintenance. You go to fix one downer and uncover 6 more in the process. Murphys Law rules supreme in that environment, 9 times out of 10 you can expect to not meet flt time goals usually over the things not planned for prior properly.

That makes sense though. I’ve waited literally weeks for parts on one program. To me it’s piss poor planning and irresponsiblity on the front end of things that cause delays and wasted resourses on the back end.

all these variables you are talking about can and should be accounted for in the planning process. slack time can be estimated for in scheduling. unfortunately we are not learning from past mistakes. why didn’t someone plan to have a hangar so to mitigate the environmental risk? For B-2’s, they had to build new hangars well into O&M, otherwise, there goes all the “proud” operational performance promises. insane.

there you go. now you’re getting it. all the operational excellence of an expensive jet don’t mean squat without the proper logistics. we have the world’s most expensive paperweights.

Yet it’s at that point now, so what possible sense is there in canceling it based how it maybe should have been canceled back in the 1990s?

“military officials say the Osprey is meeting or exceeding all their needs.” Guess they no longer need to hover out of ground effect in confined area landing zones above eight thousand ft, where OBL lived and was buried.

I am an A&P , who eats ‚sleeps, and breathes anything that takes to the skys.
I don’t think the V-22 has seen any Takur Ghars , or all the Live fire that some might think. I just think that the V-22 isn’t worth the 70+million that the speed advantage givesus. I can remember when they first started talking about the V-22 and one thing that stuck with me is that the DOD stated that the V-22 must be able to carry a HUMVEE in the cabin plus two on a sling load. Now , I have seen the V-22 and I have to say No way!!
Plus I have read alot about the V-22 , the DOD had soo much invested that they “relaxed ” the required specs to get it in the field. And it is my belief that it was at the expense of the people who fly it ‚as well as the tax payers who bought it.

Good idea, bad implementation. The technology simply isn’t ready yet and requires more refining. It’s like the earliest fixed-wing aircraft, and especially rotary-wing aircraft.

Ribby,

I am an aerospace engineer with over 30 years experience that has had the opportunity to attend AHS presentations by Osprey crew returning from flying missions in Iraq and Afganistan.

You need to breath deeper and longer from more reputable sources of information.

None of you have any experience or knowledge yet you run your mouth. The Osprey is as viable an aircraft thta has ever been fielded. Not one aircraft has ever flown without critizm and there never will be one. It is called development phase and they all have problems. The problems are overcome and you get on with it. This applies to everything including cars and commerical aircraft and all military weapons systems.

The Osprey is worth every penny it costs.

Just my opinion from a well informed former ground pounder.

The CH-46 & the CH-53 are legendary. But… What problems did they have when they were first introduced?
I can tell you first hand that when the CH-53E was introduced, Marines were afraid to fly on the thing. Unexplained crashes plagued the beast. Now it to is considered to be a reliable and capable aircraft. Many people here are probably to young to remember that. And 10 years from now the Osprey will achieve and possibly overcome the status achieved by the helicopters it is replacing.

The OV-22 has the capability to be a game changer.
On the battlefield. Speed is life. The Osprey gives the Marines the ability attack from over the horizon. At speeds that a few years ago, weren’t possible. The ability to deliver strike troops anywhere on the battlefield and retrieve them is and should be the goal of any modern military. The Osprey has it’s problems, but they are largely overcome, although I do not like the lack of a ventral turret to provide support directly under the craft. Maybe is will get remote pods that have the ability to shoot directly beneath the craft.

PS — Anyone who doesn’t think the Osprey is a great air craft needs to wake up and look around. Many regional carries are looking at Ospreys and similar aircraft to replace their turbo prop air shuttles.

The question is simple really.
If you have to fly over hostile space from point a to point b at 150 knots, lets say the enemy has 20 minutes to shoot at you.
Now, same hostile space, same distance however instead of 150 knots you are traveling at 400 knots. Well, seems to me that enemy doesn’t get as much time to shoot at you.
Speed is life. I wonder is some of the people posting some of these comments have ever flown on any of these aircraft or serves in the military? The Osprey is going to be another great aircraft.
Boeing always builds awesome birds.

Wrong, wrong, wrong…
You cannot project power with a submarine. Period. Also, surface ships aren’t sitting ducks. Once a sub fires, it gives away is position and everything in the area is going to shoot at it, just like in WWII. If you just depend on subs, I could use aircraft to prosecute your subs. Without air cover, your subs are sitting ducks to my P3s or S60.
When tanks were developed, generals said infantry were no longer needed. And we all know that there are plenty of troops on the ground.
When the Air Force first got homing missiles, they said the dog fight was over. Guess what. Our air to air kill ratio dropped from 15 to 1 to 4 to 1. Why? Because these is no such thing as a magic bullet, magic missile or magic sub…

I’m not trying to piss on your parade, but you are misinformed.

The Osprey should be the PRESIDENTial helo — NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!!!!!!

Thats why the Super Hornet block II’s primary mission is defense against cruise missiles. That’s why they got the AESA AN/APG-79. And that’s the reason of anti-SLCM upgrade of AIM-120C-7.

Okay if you want to talk about killing Marines, lets talk about the US AF guy who killed 12 Marines by mistaking their vehicle in the first war in the middle east 1991. So lets stop all AF flights, by the reasoning in this article that would solve all Marine deaths. Stop the crap and give the Marines what they want to help kill our enemies. Give them most of what they want and sleep safe.
God Bless all the Fire Eaters
Semper Fi

Seems like this company has a better idea. They already fly 500mph in their latest model line:

http://​www​.cartercopters​.com/

Check out their military designs!

They don’t have any “model” lines… all the aircraft on their website are either technology demonstrators/prototypes or concepts. None of which are even close to being ready for commercial production, let alone military fielding. They would face huge hurdles in getting ready: manufacturing feasibility (both economically and logistically), federal safety certification, practical application, marketability, meeting design contract requirements and the inevitable mission creep, etc.

Their products are not aircraft, but aircraft technologies.

Excerpts from their site:

“As explained in our FAQ, CarterCopters does not currently plan to solely manufacture either kits or certified versions of any of our concepts. Instead, we plan to partner with other qualified companies (not just aircraft companies) to build different configurations of aircraft using Carter technologies, or to license individual components to conventional aircraft manufacturers (prop, rotor, landing gear, low drag mast and rotor head, etc). ”

“Our original business plan was, once that goal had been met, to license the technology to experienced aircraft manufacturers. Let them do what they’re good at — manufacturing, while we do what we’re good at — research and development (mainly because we are small and willing to take product development risks).”

“It’s very difficult to say when the kits will be available. Substantial tooling and infrastructure still need to be completed before production can begin. This could be accelerated if there were enough interest/money, so we are accepting deposits from serious buyers to demonstrate the interest to manufacturers & investors and to allow customers to reserve production slots. ”

Thanks for the syntax correction; they do fly their planes though. They have gobs of test footage. One of the pusher prop designs does approach 500 mph if I remember the last time I research them. You got to ask yourself if they really do have a better idea, if — like that, they can put their money where their mouth is.

I wasn’t trying to focus so much on the verbage as I was trying to point out that their designs are a far-cry from even a pre-production model.

For example, the X-35 that flew in 2000 is very different from the F-35 pre-production variants being tested today. Many changes had to be made to the X-35, as the X-35 was designed as a proof-of-concept; not a ready-to-build aircraft. The same has to be said of the interim 7 years between the YF-22 and the F-22.

What CarterCopters have are proof-of-concept technology demonstrators and concept designs (paper aircraft). As they had already stated themselves, the infrastructure doesn’t exist for their designs to even go into production. But before they can get to that, they need a design that’s ready for production.

These past two decades have seen many programs fail at the process of converting a proof-of-concept vehicle (test mule/prototype) into a production-ready vehicle. The F-22 and V-22 programs struggled at this stage, threatening their operational employment. Currently this is where the F-35 program is struggling at.

CarterCopters CGT-150 concept vehicle would require a drastic redesign to meet military performance requirements, as well as the installation of military avionics, communications, sensors, and other equipment. They claim: “The CGT-150 is designed to cruise at 500 MPH at 30,000 ft altitude and carry a 140,000 lb payload for over 1000 miles.” However those claims may not stand up to operational testing when exploring the performance envelope. Likewise, the pre-production vehicles may have their performance restricted by the installation of the extra operational hardware, modification to production methods, or by safety issues discovered when exploring the performance envelope, among other things.

I would argue that at least in Afghanistan and Libya the stalemate is politician induced…ie what is our mission and endstate in both? The V-22’s contribution is a successful contribution of just one small piece of a very large system, there’s no reason to expect the V-22 to be the single game changer leading to strategic victory even if we had a clear task and purpose in Libya and Afghanistan

Yes of course. I am still impressed with some of the structure stress testing they’ve already done for similar designs. My brother has been an A&P for helicopters and other aircraft for almost 30 years, and even he is impressed with what he sees. He has worked in the military as well, but has been in heavy lift in both military and civilian life.

He is not exactly a bow-low, because Wood’s Hole tried to hire him a few years ago; but he refused, because even though the money was good, it didn’t make up for a location change. When corporations and science labs come knocking on your door, I figure he has some knowledge. Not just because he’s my brother, ya understand! HA!

I have no expectation that V-22 is a game changer. That’s the point. we spend oodles of billions of dollars trying to achieve operational excellence from super-platforms, and it doesn’t result in a strategic result, which is infinitely more important than having super platforms. and when you weight in the strategic problems caused by the Osprey’s cost & schedule overruns, and lost political capital and trust, the Osprey looks even more and more like a foolish investment.

plus the opportunity costs measured in both dollars and in time expended on the Osprey. Whatever benefit claimed by Osprey supporters you could attribute to any other theoretically promising defense technology.

The V-22 is overweight under performing and overpriced. It is justified by slogans such as “speed is life” FWIW the same claim was mad for battle cruisers, till they blew up. The V-22 is a transport. In logistics carrying capacity is life, not vehicle speed. The V-22 has overwhelmingly been used on milk runs and VIP flights. How many marines do you want to drop in on a battlefield without armor or artillery or vehicles? Airplanes and parachutes can do that better, when and if we need it done.

The V-22 is a hermaphrodite one trick pony. The one trick is horizontal speed and everything else was cut to get that. It uses 12,000 HP and carries less than half the load of a helicopter of that power. The fans compare it to horse and buggies to make their case.

If V-22 is so awesome why wasn’t it used to get bin Laden? Could it be because the twin rotors make it unsuitable for special ops because of the massive amount of dust upon takeoff and landing? And also perhaps it’s greater width than the helicopters it will replace make it unsuitable for urban operations — so we are going backwards in capabilities correct? With the amount of money sunk in Osprey’s cost overruns — we could have fielded more reliability improvements into our existing helicopter fleet correct? Maybe could have prevented the one helicopter from failing during the mission? Osprey and it’s cost overruns are an overall NEGATIVE impact for our national defense, and you V-22 advocates are a bunch of stupid, blind, corrupt PUNKS.

You can’t buy a faster helicopter then the V22 Osprey.

>If V-22 is so awesome why wasn’t it used to get bin Laden?

Because it’s designed for one special mission only — funneling cash to under-performing contractors. On a vehicle by vehicle bases the V-22 is 6 times more profitable than an equivalent helicopter. Those are numbers you cant argue with.

YOU will probably never know enough of the specifics of the mission to understand BUT you can bet that the time & distance involved in the action did not require the V-22. It is truly pathetic how the naysayers try to claim that every instance where the V-22 is not used is somehow an indication of it being incapable OR not needed.

No, the mission of the V-22 is to carry troops FARTHER & FASTER than a helicopter can.

first of all let us settle this little argument right here. Did they falsify the readiness reports, yes that’s a fact! second all these thousands of missions they did in Iraq and how they did better then anticipated wrong. I was out there and did over 85% of their missions because of their poor mission readiness. oh but guess what there great right well At least that twas said but they wouldn’t lie.….…third why did the state department by ch46 from the fleet to take to Afghanistan hmmmm maybe because troop were complaining about usmc assault support capabilities but you never see that on the news. so get cut the program and get uh 60s. oh and if you didn’t know you can by a almost 12 uh 60’s for the price of one v22 way to go usmc

Oh you’re an A&P? Well, that shuts us up. You don’t THINK the V-22 has seen the live fire some might think? You’d be better off stating what you KNOW about the program (nothing), as you’re one step evolved from the guy that changes oil for Jiffy Lube and that doesn’t exactly make you the “burning bush” of knowledge.

Quite frankly, I imagine they were waiting in reserve, as they could get there twice as fast. So no “pre-positioning” was needed as with the CH-47s. Besides — there is no “stealth” modified Osprey yet, so your point is moot.

I imagine the concern was that the V-22 is not steathed out like the bird they used; plus, the locals would recognize that it was definitely NOT a local operation — as it was — regular helicopters look pretty much the same to ordinary folks, so they would be confused as to what the government was doing in the neighborhood — if it were a V-22, a great noise would have come up from the locals, as they would immediately think a foreign invasion was on — or maybe even extra-terrestrials! HA!

You know, virtually nothing in this post is right. The wing doesn’t rotate. The disc area was sized by the Marines’ shipboard requirements. Scalable is not impossible, depends on what you want. Tilt-Rotor trades off some efficiency at the low end for higher speed, range and lower wear on the system. . The Osprey was always intended to be a medium, not heavy lift vehicle. Still, it can carry 20,000 lbs. internally, or 15,000 lbs externally. BTW, it can fly faster with a 15,000 lb external load than most conventional helicopters can fly clean. If you look back a few years, before the cutbacks started, the Army was running a program called Joint Heavy (not Medium) Lift. Although a number of concepts, including ABC were proposed, the only ones selected to go further were all Tilt-Rotor, from multiple sources.

Although let’s hope ABC proceeds, given what has been actually demonstrated so far what is the basis for stating unequivocally that it is more, “elegant and robust”?

Actually, although they claim that someday some vehicle yet to be designed will go 500 mph, the fastest they’ve ever gone is 173 mph on their prototype. They may have an efficient concept, but they’re a long way from even demonstrating most of their claims, let alone entering production.

Thanx Tilter for the update on the latest. They may have a long road to hoe after all.

Its clear how revolutionary the Osprey is. Look how many are purchased and used by other countries?
Lift of a blackhawk, cost of an F-22, and availability of a C-5A.

What your saying is they need to redirect their budget to gain more lobbying advantage in DC. Many, many great aircraft, vehicles, and weapons are still-born because of the ability of Lock-Mart, Boeing, and BAE to wine, dine, vacation, get laid and hire senior military officers and our elected public servants. Many great ideas that would help our military fight, win and survive are snuffed out by the usual suspects. I got really tired having to answer my young soldiers questions of why small, poor countries have better rifles, vehicles, radios and body armor than ours.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement