All things MV-22 Osprey

[Lawman]

Interesting that is has Jeep DNA. I didn't mean to imply that the ITV started life as a Ranger, just that it looks to be about the same. I guess it was just a bit of sticker shock looking at an order of magnitude level price increase. I realize militarizing costs extra, but that's a lot of moola.

When you look at the amount of money the average person can dump into a 93 Fox body Mustang just to make a good weekend race car or some guy can spend on an old CJ jeep turned rock crawler its really not that hard to see these vehicles getting that pricey. Look at the picture of it stripped down under construction, thats not your grandpa's body on frame built jeep.

 

[busdriver]

Intellectually, I get it guys. I was just a bit shocked. Maybe it's more a comment on how we run our acquisition business, I don't know.

That said, I brought up the Ranger because we use them extensively, and they are pretty bad-ass. Seriously, who wouldn't want to have an off-road golf cart that can do 40+ mph?

 

[scoolbubba]

"Under development since 1986, the V-22 is scheduled to go into service in 2007. It has a history of technical problems and several fatal crashes."

The last paragraph in an article about a Jeep knock off! Is this a required phrase in EVERY M/C V-22 article out there? If someone can find me a non-DOD article about the Osprey that does not mention the fact that it went through, for all intents and purposes, the same growing pains as every other military aircraft, I'll shat my pants in disbelief.

 

[Pepe]

"Under development since 1986, the V-22 is scheduled to go into service in 2007. It has a history of technical problems and several fatal crashes."

The last paragraph in an article about a Jeep knock off! Is this a required phrase in EVERY M/C V-22 article out there? If someone can find me a non-DOD article about the Osprey that does not mention the fact that it went through, for all intents and purposes, the same growing pains as every other military aircraft, I'll shat my pants in disbelief.

I remember reading an article supporting the Osprey that mentioned that it had killed FEWER test pilots than most programs. Which was a very big deal considering it's the first of it's type. Wish I could remember where I saw that...

 

[Flash]

"Under development since 1986, the V-22 is scheduled to go into service in 2007. It has a history of technical problems and several fatal crashes." .......Is this a required phrase in EVERY M/C V-22 article out there? If someone can find me a non-DOD article about the Osprey that does not mention the fact that it went through, for all intents and purposes, the same growing pains as every other military aircraft, I'll shat my pants in disbelief.

Eh, as much a success the Osprey is now she had more than her share of growing pains that many other aircraft have not had in recent years, including some 'revolutionary' ones. Being such a visible program that survived several SecDef attempts to kill it made it that much more notable to the press and public, the testing troubles made it that much more so. And it is not like it is uncontroversial in the military or even the Marines, many still don't buy the aircraft is worth it. Some Marines did the service no favors by trying to illegally game the system either, something that their fellow Marines still have to put up with. Like the F-104 and B-26 will always be known as 'widowmakers' the V-22 will probably always have a cloud over it, unfairly or not. Gotta learn to live with it.

I remember reading an article supporting the Osprey that mentioned that it had killed FEWER test pilots than most programs. Which was a very big deal considering it's the first of it's type. Wish I could remember where I saw that...

I think you would be hard pressed to back that up factually. First you have to define 'test pilot', then figure out how far back you go in terms of aircraft testing, which countries it encompasses, etc, etc. The bar is also set a lot higher than it was in the past, not just 50 years ago but even just 25 years ago when much of the current generation of aircraft we fly were being tested. The public and the military itself has less tolerance for fatalities when it comes to testing equipment, as it should with the advances we have made in designing and simulating things before they even bend metal, or spin composites nowadays. To compare it to testing programs from the 50's or even the 70's is at once absurd and simplistic, to say the least.

 

[phrogdriver]

I think you would be hard pressed to back that up factually. First you have to define 'test pilot', then figure out how far back you go in terms of aircraft testing, which countries it encompasses, etc, etc. The bar is also set a lot higher than it was in the past, not just 50 years ago but even just 25 years ago when much of the current generation of aircraft we fly were being tested. The public and the military itself has less tolerance for fatalities when it comes to testing equipment, as it should with the advances we have made in designing and simulating things before they even bend metal, or spin composites nowadays. To compare it to testing programs from the 50's or even the 70's is at once absurd and simplistic, to say the least.

In the strictest sense, the statement might be true. If you define a test pilot as an aviator doing developmental test work, the type of work that TPS graduates do, the number might actually be zero. I don't know about the 1992 mishap, but the other two fatal mishaps were not doing DT work, so their mishaps would not technically include "test pilots." It's still somewhat disingenuous to say that fewer test pilots have died, since it spent so much time in various stages of operational test. Plus, programs since the '80s really haven't killed their pilots as much. It's no longer the age of The Right Stuff, where 25% of one's peers would be expected to die during a career.

While the Osprey shouldn't get all the flak it does, the Marine Corps didn't do itself any favors in the way it handled the program. I've often said it's unfortunate that it took major fatal mishaps to make the Marine Corps run the program the way it should have been in the first place.

 

[FlyingOnFumes]

MV-22 Osprey "Hate" (Hateraide?) Group...

I realize that this is a touchy subject and recent news talks about the Osprey being very successful in OEF, but...

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&ref=mf&gid=330041178331

Seems like lot of the folks on there are "Phrog" folks. Any merit to their arguments? Or is it just all a bunch of "hateraide" drinking?

 

[Col Angus]

Any merit to their arguments?

That group of Cpls and LCpls brings up some valid points. I've heard some of the same logic applied to the endless "Monster vs Rockstar" debate. I'm a Red Bull guy myself. Monster sucks because it's gay.

 

[usmarinemike]

That group of Cpls and LCpls brings up some valid points. I've heard some of the same logic applied to the endless "Monster vs Rockstar" debate. I'm a Red Bull guy myself. Monster sucks because it's gay.

Well, when I was in college I got served 2 Monsters by a hot chick out of a monster truck full of ice with a smoke machine attached to the bottom and a siren on top. Rockstar sucks because I heard it killed some people when it was being tested. I was in third grade when that happened.

Energy drinks rule...but not Rockstar.

 

[Pepe]

I realize that this is a touchy subject and recent news talks about the Osprey being very successful in OEF, but...

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&ref=mf&gid=330041178331

Seems like lot of Phrog folks are on here. Any merit to their arguments? Or is it just all a bunch of "hateraide" drinking?

I hope to see more arguments made my you quoting junior enlisted on facebook. You're awesome.

 

[mmx1]

Just looking at the first page I see nothing but JV cheerleading for phrogs. It's stupid whether it's coming from an E-1 or a retired O-6.

That said, MCCLL has some good stuff on the nuts and bolts of MV-22 integration.

 

[FlyingOnFumes]

I hope to see more arguments made my you quoting junior enlisted on facebook. You're awesome.

I neither quoted anyone nor did I make any arguments whatsoever, just came across this page and presented it for discussion. I am not qualified enough and don't know enough to make an argument one way or another.

 

[usmarinemike]

Just looking at the first page I see nothing but JV cheerleading for phrogs. It's stupid whether it's coming from an E-1 or a retired O-6.

That said, MCCLL has some good stuff on the nuts and bolts of MV-22 integration.

Is there a non SIPR MCCLL site? Can it be accessed without a CAC?

 

[phrogdriver]

The Facebook group is entitled "Ospreys Suck." What kind of comments would one expect to find on there? I can start a group called "You Suck" and get 100 comments in a couple of days explaining that one, too. There is a lot of vitriol and few, if any, facts. You can't even respond to most of the comments.

"It sucks!"

"It does not!"

"Does too!"

If they enjoy spending their time hearing their non-fact-based opinions re-affirmed, they can. It's the retarded leading the blind on that board. No one is going to convince them to change their minds, anyway. Theirs is the sort of thinking wherein they start with a premise based on second-hand or slight first-hand observation, then they reinforce their already formed conclusions by only admitting to facts supporting it. For example, "I heard it breaks down a lot." Every time they see one down, it reinforces that notion, no matter how many up aircraft they might see.

As far as the MCCLL site, they have a NIPR site, but it is CAC only. There is a MCCLL report on the 22D MEU available, FOUO, that's not half-bad.

 

[FlyingOnFumes]

The Facebook group is entitled "Ospreys Suck." What kind of comments would one expect to find on there? I can start a group called "You Suck" and get 100 comments in a couple of days explaining that one, too. There is a lot of vitriol and few, if any, facts. You can't even respond to most of the comments.

"It sucks!"

"It does not!"

"Does too!"

If they enjoy spending their time hearing their non-fact-based opinions re-affirmed, they can. It's the retarded leading the blind on that board. No one is going to convince them to change their minds, anyway. Theirs is the sort of thinking wherein they start with a premise based on second-hand or slight first-hand observation, then they reinforce their already formed conclusions by only admitting to facts supporting it. For example, "I heard it breaks down a lot." Every time they see one down, it reinforces that notion, no matter how many up aircraft they might see.

As far as the MCCLL site, they have a NIPR site, but it is CAC only. There is a MCCLL report on the 22D MEU available, FOUO, that's not half-bad.

Thanks Phrog. That's basically all I needed (or wanted) to hear. I figured best way to kill any speculation was to just present it here and let those in the know either affirm it or knock it down for good.