Posted on 10/07/2007 6:54:38 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
Column - Roger Williams: Time reporter wouldn't give conflicting source time of day
Opinion
Column
Over the past several days, my office has received a barrage of phone calls and e-mail inquiries regarding Time magazine's Sept. 28 article on the V-22 Osprey. I certainly don't pretend to be a professional journalist, but I do feel it important to set forth a factual response for my fellow Amarilloans - people the world recognizes as having a major stake in the future of the Osprey.
Time magazine reporter Mark Thompson chose to rely on select, outdated information which was both inaccurate and misleading. Thompson was provided information from the Department of Defense V-22 Program Office which directly contradicted the V-22 critics' views, but he chose not to include it in his article.
I will focus on the key points Thompson made and provide a fact-based response.
Thompson's chief criticisms center on the aircraft's inability to "autorotate" and the absence of a forward-firing weapon.
"Autorotation" is the ability of a helicopter to land safely in the event of power loss by using the rotors to slow descent - similar to the principle of a parachute..
The Time article contends the Pentagon eliminated the autorotation requirement for the V-22. The "autorotation requirement" has in fact never changed, as it was never a specific requirement. Why? Because the Osprey is not a helicopter.
The Pentagon's list of requirements for "Survivability and Crashworthiness" from 1994 states:
"Power-off glide/autorotation: The JMVX (1994-era designation for the V-22) must be capable of a survivable emergency landing."
The current requirements document says the V-22 "must be capable of performing a survivable emergency landing with all engines inoperative (Threshold/Block A/10)."
Additionally, the combination of high engine reliability, large separation between engines, lower vulnerability to ground fire than CH-46/53 predecessors (due to its ability to fly so much higher than a conventional helicopter), and the absence of a tail-rotor make the chances of a V-22 requiring an autorotation much lower than for a typical helicopter.
Remember, the V-22 is a hybrid aircraft - not a helicopter - designed for 70 percent of its airborne life to be spent in airplane mode and only 30 percent of its airborne time spent in conversion or helicopter mode. Consequently, it has much more glide capacity than any helicopter.
The bottom line is that the Osprey is indeed a very survivable aircraft in the event of a power loss.
Thompson also decries the absence of a forward-firing weapon. Perhaps his readers would bear in mind that not a single assault support aircraft in the Department of Defense inventory has a forward-firing weapon. Why? The MV-22 is not a gunship; it is an assault support aircraft, and its weapons are defensive in nature.
Prior to inserting or extracting in a landing zone, typically ground forces and/or attack aircraft secure the LZ. The Marines' assault support tactics, techniques and procedures push for assault support aircraft to leave the LZ as fast as possible. The faster it leaves, the more survivable the aircraft.
The V-22 is the world's fastest assault support aircraft. There have been no instances during Operations Enduring Freedom/Iraqi Freedom where aircraft would have been "saved" had they fielded a forward-firing weapon.
Being ready to go to work every morning is the test for any aircraft. Thompson neglects to report that the Marine Corps has touted the MV-22Bs' near 78-percent mission capable rates during operational testing in desert conditions for the squadron that deployed to Iraq earlier this month. These rates are expected to continue to get better with additional cumulative flight hours and experience in maintenance and logistics procedures. Last year, the Marines' 40-year-old CH-46s, the aircraft the MV-22 will replace, had a stateside mission readiness rate of approximately 76 percent.
Because of its far-fetched assumptions and almost conspiratorial tone, longtime aerospace expert Loren Thompson, Ph.D., (no relation to the Time reporter) likened Thompson's article to the plot of an Oliver Stone movie.
I don't see enough movies to pass judgment on that observation, so I will point out that the Bell Helicopter team in Amarillo, of which I am so proud to be a part, agrees completely with the final sentence in the letter that Gen. Ron Magnus (Assistant Commandant, USMC) wrote to Time magazine:
"We have no doubts that the Marine Corps' MV-22B Ospreys are ready for their most important mission: Carrying our most precious assets, Marines and Sailors, into combat."
Roger Williams is executive director and site leader at Bell Helicopter Military Aircraft Assembly Center in Amarillo.
Don’t ya love it when someone catches Time or the N.Y. time with an agenda get caught?
Having been in the CH-46 many times,watched the air detachment work all night to keep them FMC (full mission capable), I’ll take a new MV-22 over a 40 year old rattletrap any day. I doubt the reporter rode in either aircraft.
God I hate CH46s.
I was contacted by Thompson in late August. ... Thompson left out the part where I indicated my support and hopes for VMM-263's success and resultantly I am presented as a "critic."
ping
The lie is on page 1, the retraction is on page 30 of a 20 page magazine.
The MSM knows this. The lie will get reported as truth.
That anti-gun hit book based ENTIRELY ON PROVEN LIES AND FRAUD is still reported as truth in the ivy leagues.
I saw my first Osprey flying up the Hudson Thursday.
‘Way cool! Those huge props were something to see!
This is just another (albeit more stealthy) way to disarm our troops and prevent the use of American military force. Unjustified criticism is intended to prevent the adoption of new, and desperately needed equipment. This leaves the services of having to field obsolete equipment, while driving maintenance costs sky high due to age. Meanwhile readiness and combat power suffer.
Further, it must be remembered that not all equipment is going to meet a complete universe of requirements. Get the requirements for the mission right and no problem. Start attempting to make every system gold plated and we’ll never field anything due to cost. Look at what it took to armor Hummers. It’s a damn useful vehicle, but was never intended to be an armored car. The mission requirements changed and demanded what was essentially an armored car - and we managed to adapt. We need to think that way about the Osprey.
This did not seem to bother these pros in the least.
Too much word and definition/designation parsing going on with both sides of this controversy......
zero chance of autorotation is scary.....
The Flight Manual of the CH-46 was written in more blood then any of the MV-22 critics will ever admit to.
At one time it was easily the deadliest helicopter ever in the Marine Corps inventory, and it may still hold that dubious honor.
I learned long ago that whatever the MSM says either about Airlines or Military flying is going to be pretty wide of the mark. I don't believe anything else they say either.
“The C-2 Greyhounds I flew for the Navy couldn’t autorotate either”
so what?
they weren’t airborne at walk speed....and they have 700 sq ft of wing to glide on....
Exactly what one would expect from a Bell rep. He earns his living with them, not gonna be eager to say anything detrimental to Bell.
However, buying oranges from him might be a high-risk venture; you may end up with a passel of apples.
I think this is a cool airplane......but looking at it in the context of a hot LZ.....?......uh-uh......
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.