Warbird Information Exchange

Again what a waste of our tax dollars

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnava ... 91119.aspx

Progress in aviation is wrought with unexpected and unforeseen costs. It seems a bit of thought prior to this discovery would have helped. BUT that does not make the V-22 a waste of our taxpayer dollars. There is nothing in the inventory that can do what the V-22 can do. There is nothing in anyone's inventory that can either...so...I would say, advantage USA.

If teething problems with new technology were the criteria for their further development I would hazard to guess that armies would still be arriving on the battlefield after a months long march on foot and horse back.

Thanks for trolling along.

Z

I remember this was a problem with the harriers on the old LPH's. Can't believe that the Navy turned a blind eye to it in requards to newer ships and aircraft.

Seems simple to me, just use a high temp composite deck coating in areas effected.

Looks more like an issue with the support equipment not being properly and adequately toughened up to withstand the new equipment. So I'd say you're wrong and off base blaming the aircraft for the Navys failure to expect this sort of thing and properly planning for it. It's NOT an aircraft issue, write NIP and complain to them about their weak girl boats.

my son is at new river, an off chute of camp lejuen. he states no problems. the osprey is going to have major teething problems, a no brainer. in the long run it's versatility will long pay off once the bugs are removed.

The proud V-22 aircrew members I met at the Alliance airshow a few weeks ago didn't seem to think their aircraft were "a waste of tax dollars," and I would argue they are the experts.

I'm certain there are bright engineers who will deal with this problem in short order.

I remember when I was in the 82nd Airborne and we just got the UH-60. At that time the UH-60 Blackhawk was called the "Crashhawk"! Now it's one of the most respected helicopters around. I know the M/CV-22 are revolutionary, not evolutionary, so there are bound to be problems. So, once they're fixed, hold on to your hat because the Osprey will be a truly great aircraft.

Show me a new military aircraft that hasn't had it's share of problems? P-51A, was a real dog at altitude and suffered cooling leaks and other problems. B-29, engine fires and electrical problems. F4U Corsairs, banned from carrier landings initially. F-14 Tomcats, engine problems and other issues causing numerous crashes in the early 70's (neighbor of mine killed in one of those crashes). Those are just a few that come to mind and I don't even begin to have an extensive knowledge of military aircraft. The V-22 Osprey is new technology. I expect there to be some real teething issues with it. I think it will eventually be found to be a significant aircraft in military aviation history.

I can only agree with the others. This is another case of trying to blame the messenger (the airplane) instead of the machine (the Navy) - where the real fault lies.

The deck issue has NOTHING to do with the aircraft. In fact, as the article states, it's a problem with the F-35 too. It's a point where once again, the bean counters and engineers, who have ZERO real world experience most of the time never think beyond the end of their noses when designing something and think "do I need to make sure that the people responsible for the decks of these ships are given this data?"

This is the same issue as with the test aircraft crashes. The problem wasn't with the aircraft in 2 of them - it was with the pilots who directly violated flight limitations that were IN WRITING and then the media tried to blame the aircraft for not being able to do anything that the pilot asks, no matter what physics may dictate.

I see this as yet another B-1A/B deal - certain people don't like it, so they try to find any reason to say it's a failure despite all the information otherwise.

Ztex wrote:Progress in aviation is wrought with unexpected and unforeseen costs. It seems a bit of thought prior to this discovery would have helped. BUT that does not make the V-22 a waste of our taxpayer dollars. There is nothing in the inventory that can do what the V-22 can do. Z

What is that, carry 1/4 of the Sea Stallion's payload twice as fast (math anyone?) at a cost of 8 times as much? Yeah, thanks a lot...

Rich

richkolasa wrote:What is that, carry 1/4 of the Sea Stallion's payload twice as fast (math anyone?) at a cost of 8 times as much? Yeah, thanks a lot...

Rich

Rich, you're thinking of the wrong Sea Stallion.

The CH-53D "Sea Stallion", which the MV-22 is replacing, can carry 8,000 lbs, less than the 16,000 pounds of the MV-22A "Osprey". (see: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_displ ... d=200&ct=1).

The CH-53E "Sea Stallion"/MH-53E "Sea Dragon" (which are the ones you're thinking of) are going to be replaced with the CH-53K - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53K

The MV-22 is also replacing the CH-46E "Sea Knight" which can carry even less (4,000 pounds).

We go back to the point I made previously - finding anything possible to discredit the aircraft, regardless of the facts.

Simple fix to that. After the aircraft clears off, hose down the effected area of the deck with water.

Rgds Cking

my son just recently got a close up of the osprey. his command sergeant related it's small payload capacity. i know 1 beef with it is that it's woefully under armed with 1 flexible mini gun mounted by the loading ramp.

It's getting a belly-mounted Minigun in a retractable turret designed by BAe. Should be getting to the fleet by this time next year. Should rectify most of the problem.

As for the payload - it can carry a full squad of Marines with equipment, that's what was spec'd, and that's what was delivered. If they wanted more, then they should've asked.