And it's not like the Osprey is anti-helicopter... the American Helicopter Museum itself has a V-22 Osprey.
Many of the docents are helicopter folks but love to show you the inside of the Osprey.
Posted on 06/17/2006 6:41:18 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
3 auxiliary fuel tanks?
Fuel is payload!
What else can it carry when these 3 tanks are full?
Can the 2 Marines bring full backpacks or does that require a 2nd V22?
This is only one of many examples where congress has pretended they were engineers, and dictated either designs or whole programs, with the sole purpose of bringing jobs home and buying votes.
DoD would have bagged this program a long time ago!
My other favorite example is the Space Shuttle, with it's recycled parts. Congress liked the idea of recycling because of it's PR value. Aerospace engineers would have never recommended that approach as being most efficient and cost effective.
Curt Weldon wanted it more than anyone .Plant is in his district.
A very safe bet considering aircraft of all types get grounded each year -- even ones that you & I consider to be fairly reliable. Fleet groundings are routine when accident investigations begin to point toward something that doesn't get covered in maintenance cycles. If the MV-22 doesn't get grounded this year it will probably mean that they are not putting very many hours on the aircraft.
Isn't it pretty apparent that they are demonstrating a long-range ferry capability? Let's say you need to bring in a flight of MV-22's to meet an amphibious ready group. Pick up a Marine Recon element (already embarked on an LHD), and fly off the LHD to an inland target too far for the Sea Stallions. All you'd have to do is dump the ferry tanks.
Didn't the article say the Aux tanks were INBOARD?
Marines are called Marines, period.
Where did you discover the forty billion dollar figure?
No statement more accurately describes a helicopter! Or GPS-based navigation and fire control. Or grown men using model airplanes in battle. Or bar codes that track and inventory vehicles, supplies, weapons and even Marines. But these are better tools used to wins battles -- decisively.
Early in the last century, many thought that aviation was just a dangerous novelty, and not worth the number of men lost in its development. The debate continued at each major step until the Space Age -- which was made possible by a lot of bravery and sacrifice. Military life is inherently dangerous, which is why even we infantry officers hold test pilots in such high regard.
I am thankful that our young Marines have -- and will continue to have -- the best weapons and equipment that we can give them. Semper Fidelis...
We used to say that the SH3 didn't actually fly, it was so ugly that the Earth repelled it, others said that it just beat the air into submission.
As far as dangerous AC I think the Harrier had the more flight safety challenges and it is still difficult to fly.
The list of assets used to win battles and war is very long and growing daily.
It should also be noted that if it is designed to be dangerous to the enemy it is dangerous or as Rush has said in the past "a Tiger is a Tiger"
The Osprey is a fine addition to the Marines toolbox.
TT
Bump for later.
And it's not like the Osprey is anti-helicopter... the American Helicopter Museum itself has a V-22 Osprey.
Many of the docents are helicopter folks but love to show you the inside of the Osprey.
Thanks for that. I was wondering "wither the Osprey" just the other day (I have a fascination with military aerial equipment).
Very helpful, very useful, very interesting.
The Osprey has had its share of technical problems - just like every other aircraft in the inventory. The H-1 rotors had this annoying habit of flying of in negative g conditions (mast bumping). The H-46 back end kept falling off in flight. The H-53 tail boom would fall off in flight. The list can go on and on.
The crash that killed most those Marines in Pheonix(?) was a result of pilot error, not technical shortcomings fo the aircraft. Vortex ring state is a common phenomenon to all rotary wing aircraft and the pilots who crashed failed to keep their AC out of the state.
The Osprey has gone through very rigorous operational evaluation testing and passed. It's ready for the fleet.
BTTT
Again, I understand your emotional reaction. Almost every death is a sad event, but as a matter of perspective, do you know how many military personnel are killed each year in training accidents?
How many die in crashes of other aircraft? How many die in helicopters?
How about narrowing it down to each type. For instance, how many die in Blackhawks and its variants? How many of each type crashed during operational testing?
Come back with numbers and we can see how the Osprey stacks up and if it lives up to the reputation you're trying to give it.
" I'll make a bet I'll be sad to collect. I bet the first loss in an operational area is 'Not due to enemy fire.'"
Pretty safe bet. You could probably make that bet with every aircraft - fixed wing or helo. Sad fact is, the vast majority of aircraft lost are due to non-combat related incidents, be they mechanical failure or pilot error. This has been the sad fact since the first military flight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.