-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Osprey?
- Thread starter thatgnarlyguy
- Start date
Brett327 said:
And the Air Force.
The Navy is always listed as a future buyer of the V-22 in the media. For itself, that is, not just as the source of Marine Corps "blue dollars." I just can't see it buying a new aircraft so soon after it bought all these shiny new H-60s. Just my speculation on that, though.
phrogdriver said:
Early program office briefs included a potential Navy buy as conversely did the F/A-18E/F briefs include a potential Marine buy (like that will ever happen as Marines fixed bayonets to defend JSF years ago). Both were "outside" the six year programming forecast (FYDP) so anything goes there and it helps calculate a reduced overall until cost so don't go by the media reports. They don't drive the Naval Aviation plan. They are having a hard enough time keep ing what we've got going now so don't expect a new platform showing up in a blank space.
Raptor2216
Registered User
A little off topic but I found this website that talks about some of the critical problems the osprey has/had and I am wondering if they have been addressed? Here is the site:http://www.g2mil.com/V-22safety.htm
V-22 website is bad gouge in my book
Caution: This website is one of two that I know of that are alarmist and take selected data or quotes out of context or simply make statements with no basis in reality. This gent claims V-22 failed OPEVAL and has a table with supposed Key Performance Parameters (KPP) that were not met with a link to the OPEVAL report as his reference. If you follow the link, the opening statement says V-22 is "operationally effective" and "operationally suitable". That means it passed OPEVAL. OPTEVFOR doesn't give a higher "grade" than that. The report also lists areas of concerns stemming from earlier testing and how they are being addressed or resolved. If you want to know about V-22, talk to one of the pilots, not this guy.
P_ubhi18 said:
Caution: This website is one of two that I know of that are alarmist and take selected data or quotes out of context or simply make statements with no basis in reality. This gent claims V-22 failed OPEVAL and has a table with supposed Key Performance Parameters (KPP) that were not met with a link to the OPEVAL report as his reference. If you follow the link, the opening statement says V-22 is "operationally effective" and "operationally suitable". That means it passed OPEVAL. OPTEVFOR doesn't give a higher "grade" than that. The report also lists areas of concerns stemming from earlier testing and how they are being addressed or resolved. If you want to know about V-22, talk to one of the pilots, not this guy.
P_ubhi18 said:
If you've got a few hours (and I mean like 3 or 4) read up on this thread. http://forums.military.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/5671946761/m/591104612 Theres a guy on there by the name of Sarno, hes a captain, and a pilot on the Osprey. Theres also a couple of guys that try nothing better then to knock the aircraft any way they can. You will learn a lot about the whole situation, including problems that arent really the Ospreys fault (like generators from the 60's or problems hooking into the older Amphib boats). You will also learn a lot of the solutions to these problems. Its a read though.
The g2.mil webmaster, Carlton Meyer, is a former Marine officer who has joined the ranks of the conspiracy theorists and crank military analysts. He posts links to sites that push ideas such as the 9/11 attacks being setup by our government and that Sen. Paul Wellstone's plane was brought down by an EMP attack. According to his website bio, he's "been involved in military operations around the world." Woo-hoo. So has any Marine with one float.
This is his latest hitpiece on the Osprey: http://g2mil.com/Duma.htm . In it, he claims that the Osprey "failed" its operational evaluation. That's news to the Defense Acquistion Board, which said it passed. Many V-22 critics use half-truths to give their arguments credence. For example, they will use a helicopter's Vne and compare it to the cruising speed of a V-22 to claim there's not much difference.
In some cases, such as this G2.mil article, I can't even guess where his information is coming from. For example, the V-22 at "300 feet must cruise less than 200 knots because of the thicker air." "Thicker air?" I've flown it myself at well over that speed at 300'. Or claiming a "ferry range" of 500NM and a "useful load range" of 200NM. Neither one of those distance even breaks a sweat in a V-22.
Arguing with some Osprey critics is like competing in the Special Olympics--even if you win, you're still a retard. Osprey-bashing is a virtual religion among some DOD critics. Take isolated facts out of context or use outdated information to make a point, and someone who doesn't know anything about assault support might believe you. I've flown the CH-46 in a couple of contingencies, and having flown the V-22, I know that the V-22 would have done a much better job. The V-22 program has pilots of every R/W platform and a few from TACAIR, and all will tell you that the V-22 blows the doors off of anything comparable. It is trading up from a Pinto to a Ferrari.
This is his latest hitpiece on the Osprey: http://g2mil.com/Duma.htm . In it, he claims that the Osprey "failed" its operational evaluation. That's news to the Defense Acquistion Board, which said it passed. Many V-22 critics use half-truths to give their arguments credence. For example, they will use a helicopter's Vne and compare it to the cruising speed of a V-22 to claim there's not much difference.
In some cases, such as this G2.mil article, I can't even guess where his information is coming from. For example, the V-22 at "300 feet must cruise less than 200 knots because of the thicker air." "Thicker air?" I've flown it myself at well over that speed at 300'. Or claiming a "ferry range" of 500NM and a "useful load range" of 200NM. Neither one of those distance even breaks a sweat in a V-22.
Arguing with some Osprey critics is like competing in the Special Olympics--even if you win, you're still a retard. Osprey-bashing is a virtual religion among some DOD critics. Take isolated facts out of context or use outdated information to make a point, and someone who doesn't know anything about assault support might believe you. I've flown the CH-46 in a couple of contingencies, and having flown the V-22, I know that the V-22 would have done a much better job. The V-22 program has pilots of every R/W platform and a few from TACAIR, and all will tell you that the V-22 blows the doors off of anything comparable. It is trading up from a Pinto to a Ferrari.
Raptor2216
Registered User
Phrogdriver,
That's all good to hear. I posted up that link hoping that someone here would shed more light on the issue. It is obviously a very unique aircraft and it would be stupid to stop all R&D because of some unfortunate accidents. I hope it is as good if not better than the claims.
That's all good to hear. I posted up that link hoping that someone here would shed more light on the issue. It is obviously a very unique aircraft and it would be stupid to stop all R&D because of some unfortunate accidents. I hope it is as good if not better than the claims.
I've definately tried to keep an open mind about the whole tilt-rotor debate, and I really think that the Osprey is an awesome bird.
My only misgiving about the Osprey comes from something that phrogdriver said. He made a good point about going "from a pinto to a ferrari." That's pretty accurate, because the V-22 definately kicks a$$. The only thing is, and phrogdriver and the other Marines out there can back me up on this, is that as notoriously poor and underfunded as the Corps is, did we really need to buy a bunch of "ferraris", when there are several new, reliable, competent "fords" out there. (i.e. there are some pretty damn capable medium lift helos out there nowadays, at about a third of the price, that could have taken over the mission, with just a small sacrifice in speed).
Also, being completely honest, for every Marine helo pilot that I've seen lauding the V-22, i've seen one crapping on it as well.
By no means am I bashing the Osprey, just making a few points. After all, none of this discussion really means much now. We've got it, and like anything else, we'll make it work.
My only misgiving about the Osprey comes from something that phrogdriver said. He made a good point about going "from a pinto to a ferrari." That's pretty accurate, because the V-22 definately kicks a$$. The only thing is, and phrogdriver and the other Marines out there can back me up on this, is that as notoriously poor and underfunded as the Corps is, did we really need to buy a bunch of "ferraris", when there are several new, reliable, competent "fords" out there. (i.e. there are some pretty damn capable medium lift helos out there nowadays, at about a third of the price, that could have taken over the mission, with just a small sacrifice in speed).
Also, being completely honest, for every Marine helo pilot that I've seen lauding the V-22, i've seen one crapping on it as well.
By no means am I bashing the Osprey, just making a few points. After all, none of this discussion really means much now. We've got it, and like anything else, we'll make it work.
powder said:
What do you mean by a small sacrifice in speed? The PMA website lists max cruise speed in the upper 240's. That has got to be 80-100 knots faster than any helo. That is significant. Maybe the PMA advertised speed is not accurate/realisitic, I don't know. Phrogdriver?
Okay, there is a pretty decent sacrifice in speed. Given that a modern helo can perform as good or better in just about every other performance parameter (minus altitude [which is restricted anyway unless you can get oxygen to all the grunts in the back]), the question is, and this can easily be debated both ways, are those 80-100 knots worth 3 times the sticker price of a US 101?
Also, someone else pointed out that osprey bashers always like to compare a helo's max speed to an Osprey's cruise speed. That's obviously a stupid and misleading comparison. However, the Osprey proponents always like to go to their "three times as far, twice as fast, three times as much..." tag line, I forget how it goes exactly. They fail to mention, though, that these numbers are relative to an almost fifty year-old aircraft that is severely limited by current airframe restrictions.
Again, I think it's a great a/c, just wanted to lay out some points.
Also, someone else pointed out that osprey bashers always like to compare a helo's max speed to an Osprey's cruise speed. That's obviously a stupid and misleading comparison. However, the Osprey proponents always like to go to their "three times as far, twice as fast, three times as much..." tag line, I forget how it goes exactly. They fail to mention, though, that these numbers are relative to an almost fifty year-old aircraft that is severely limited by current airframe restrictions.
Again, I think it's a great a/c, just wanted to lay out some points.
Would it help if I said it was a Corvette?
It's not just speed, but also range and manueverability. Do you wonder why the H-60 has been such a standard for 20 years? Because there have been no major improvements in the basic capabilities of helos. You can hang different electronics and weapons off them, but they're fundamentally the same. For example, top speeds will never exceed 200 knots with a cruise of maybe 150. The Osprey typically cruises at 220.
By way of another example, it can range all of Iraq from Baghdad or fly into Kandahar from the coast of Pakistan without refuelling. As far as cost, give me an example of something else we could purchase for that money that could make such a fundamental change in the dynamic of the battlefield.
There are a lot of Marine pilots who disparage the V-22, but none of them have ever ridden in it, much less flown it. They read the same liberal press the general public does and build their opinions accordingly. This is a pilot's aircraft--everybody comes out after their first flights with smiles on their faces.
It's not just speed, but also range and manueverability. Do you wonder why the H-60 has been such a standard for 20 years? Because there have been no major improvements in the basic capabilities of helos. You can hang different electronics and weapons off them, but they're fundamentally the same. For example, top speeds will never exceed 200 knots with a cruise of maybe 150. The Osprey typically cruises at 220.
By way of another example, it can range all of Iraq from Baghdad or fly into Kandahar from the coast of Pakistan without refuelling. As far as cost, give me an example of something else we could purchase for that money that could make such a fundamental change in the dynamic of the battlefield.
There are a lot of Marine pilots who disparage the V-22, but none of them have ever ridden in it, much less flown it. They read the same liberal press the general public does and build their opinions accordingly. This is a pilot's aircraft--everybody comes out after their first flights with smiles on their faces.