Osprey Will Join Fleet in 2007

N&P: Discussion of news headlines and politics.

Moderator: frigidmagi

Post Reply
User avatar
frigidmagi
Dragon Death-Marine General
Posts: 14757
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:03 am
19
Location: Alone and unafraid

#1 Osprey Will Join Fleet in 2007

Post by frigidmagi »

Mil.com
MARINE CORPS AIR STATION NEW RIVER, N.C. - The Marine Corps hopes to start replacing its fleet of Vietnam-era helicopters with the MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft by 2007, the Marines' top air commander said Wednesday.

The announcement came about a month after the $71 million aircraft successfully completed a safety evaluation ordered in the wake of two crashes that killed 23 Marines in 2000. The crashes led to a 17-month suspension of the Osprey program, as well as an investigation that resulted in changes in the design of the unique aircraft.

Lt. Gen. Michael Hough, chief of Marine Corps aviation, acknowledged the Osprey - which takes off like a helicopter but flies like an airplane - developed a bad reputation after the crashes. But, he insisted Wednesday, "This is a safe airplane."

"It will be the war machine we want it to be," Hough said.

And even though Congress has yet to approve the $50.5 billion program, the corps is already training pilots and ground crews.

"The process of fielding (the Osprey) has already begun," said Col. Craig Olson, the joint program project manager from the Air Force.

The cost of the aircraft has risen from an original estimate of about $40 million each, but officials say the price should drop to about $58 million if they reach full production of about 48 units a year. The Marine Corps wants 360 of the aircraft, while the Air Force wants 50 for its special operations troops. The Navy also is considering the aircraft.

On Wednesday, the Marine Corps took several dozen journalists on rides along the New River and the Atlantic coast bordering Marine installations. The flights included maneuvers aimed at showing off the aircraft's ability to take off quickly, achieve high speeds and bank sharply in flight.

This air base, which shares part of the New River shoreline with Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, has 25 Ospreys that are under the command of a special test and evaluation squadron that reports to a Navy admiral.

During the final testing, eight Ospreys were tested at sea level and at landing zones at 10,000-foot altitudes and in conditions simulating the fine desert sand of Iraq, said Col. Glenn Walters, commander of VMX-22, the test squadron.

The Osprey can carry more troops - and for a longer distance at a higher speed - than the CH-46 helicopter it is designed to replace, Walters said. In addition, the Osprey requires less maintenance time for each hour of flight.

Evaluation flights have taught the squadron's pilots that by tilting the engines slightly, they can avoid the kind of turbulence that destroyed lift and contributed to a crash, Olson said.

The key to acceptance of the Osprey by Congress and critics, though, is to stop comparing it to helicopters, Hough said.

"This is not a helicopter," Hough said.
This thing has killed more Marines than some terrorist groups. And I just loovvvee this 'don't compare it to a helicoptor, because it's not,' crap. IT'S REPLACING A HELICOPTOR YOU DOLTS, DAMN SKIPPY WE SHOULD COMPARE IT TO ONE!

Plus we're in a world where Man Portable anti-aircraft systems are more and more plentiful, I have serious doubts about this craft's ability in the realms of defense and manuever. Can this thing dodge or defend against a shoulder mounted missled? Can it survive being shot? Gee, given it's crash record, what do y'all think?

And it doesn't carry enough Marines.

Damn just we need a fucking flying LAV.
"it takes two sides to end a war but only one to start one. And those who do not have swords may still die upon them." Tolken
User avatar
B4UTRUST
Dance Puppets Dance
Posts: 4867
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:31 pm
19
Location: Chesapeake, Va
Contact:

#2

Post by B4UTRUST »

For the record, AFSOC is getting them too. We've already got people being trained and another hanger being built on my base to support these things.

And I've been in them, I've seen them, I've watched them take off and land and fly. If you can call it that.

They had to override certain safety locks just to get the thing off the ground. The thing is a flying deathtrapped piece of shit all around. A hydraulics nightmare, a flying fucking target.

I'm AF and I wouldn't go within 100ft of those things.
Image
Saint Annihilus - Patron Saint of Dealing with Stupid Customers
Ra
Master
Posts: 1643
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:36 am
19
Location: Back?
Contact:

#3

Post by Ra »

This thing should have died ten years ago, when it was still a concept. Like the now-cancelled Comanche, the V-22 is being pushed for politics and business interests, not it's capabilities. What the USMC really needed was a next-generation heavy-lift chopper, not a tilt-rotor monstrosity that costs as much as a frakking F-16.
- Ra
Jonathan McKenzie
Half-Insane Snakehead | MSPaint Acolyte | Wierd TGOD'er


"Every time you stay abstinent...Kitten kills a god."
User avatar
Lord Stormbringer
The Red Duke
Posts: 231
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:31 am
19

#4

Post by Lord Stormbringer »

This thing has killed more Marines than some terrorist groups. And I just loovvvee this 'don't compare it to a helicoptor, because it's not,' crap. IT'S REPLACING A HELICOPTOR YOU DOLTS, DAMN SKIPPY WE SHOULD COMPARE IT TO ONE!
To be fair, a lot of people are comparing it's test program to that of a bog standard helicopter. It's not by any means, it's a fairly revolutionary design and it's going to take time and lives to have it worked out. Trying to compare a pioneering design to a simple improvement is the proverbial apples to oranges.

The question should be whether it's problems have been worked out. I don't honestly know.
Plus we're in a world where Man Portable anti-aircraft systems are more and more plentiful, I have serious doubts about this craft's ability in the realms of defense and manuever. Can this thing dodge or defend against a shoulder mounted missled? Can it survive being shot? Gee, given it's crash record, what do y'all think?
And how well do our helicopters manuver now?
And it doesn't carry enough Marines.
The Osprey can carry more troops - and for a longer distance at a higher speed - than the CH-46 helicopter it is designed to replace, Walters said.
Wahhh?
Image
User avatar
frigidmagi
Dragon Death-Marine General
Posts: 14757
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:03 am
19
Location: Alone and unafraid

#5

Post by frigidmagi »

The CH-46 doesn't excaltly carry a boat load of Marines either Stormy. Took 3 trips to get my platoon and gear anywhere and we were a short platoon. A full sized Infantry Platoon? Forget it. Dribbling in troops is a bad idea, always has been always will be.

On this Apples and Organes... They're both fruit. Both designs are suppose to fulfill near the same role, in fact one is proclaimed to be worthy of replacing the other. If you want to replace A with B, then B must be compared with A.

Has for how the Helos manevur? A new system is suppose to be an improvement. Not a damn step down.
"it takes two sides to end a war but only one to start one. And those who do not have swords may still die upon them." Tolken
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman
Sick, Twisted Fuck
Posts: 1949
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:37 pm
19
Location: MENTAL HOSPITAL
Contact:

#6

Post by Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman »

Ra wrote:This thing should have died ten years ago, when it was still a concept. Like the now-cancelled Comanche
WAIT, COMANCHE IS CANCELLED??????

:( :cry:

It's not fair. It ain't just fair....
The Sick, Twisted Fuck | Sap #2 of the Bitter Trio | Knight of the e-mail | Evil Liberal Conspirator | Esoteric Order of Dagon | Weird TGODer

Share your free D&D character here.

:welcome :arrow: :sheepfucker: :thumbsup

So be it. If saying "NO" means being alone, then to hell with love, with romance, with marriage, and all the shit life keeps pumping at me. I'll walk alone, but with freedom and a healed pride.

NEVER buy a LiteOn CD/DVD Writer. Ever.
User avatar
Lord Stormbringer
The Red Duke
Posts: 231
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:31 am
19

#7

Post by Lord Stormbringer »

frigidmagi wrote:The CH-46 doesn't excaltly carry a boat load of Marines either Stormy. Took 3 trips to get my platoon and gear anywhere and we were a short platoon. A full sized Infantry Platoon? Forget it. Dribbling in troops is a bad idea, always has been always will be.
I didn't say it was. But if the CH-46 was considered suitable for the job then it's hardly fair to critsise it's successor when it's a step up.
frigidmagi wrote:On this Apples and Organes... They're both fruit. Both designs are suppose to fulfill near the same role, in fact one is proclaimed to be worthy of replacing the other. If you want to replace A with B, then B must be compared with A.
I will put this bluntly since you seem to have missed the point made: The Osprey is not a helicopter nor is it an aircraft. It is a hybrid between the two, a realm little explored. Therefor it's reasonable to expect it will have a lot more teething problems than an aircraft of an established type.

The question becomes legitimately one of if it's ready, not if it was tougher to develop.
frigidmagi wrote:Has for how the Helos manevur? A new system is suppose to be an improvement. Not a damn step down.
So I'll take that as meaning that helicopters aren't any better?
Image
User avatar
frigidmagi
Dragon Death-Marine General
Posts: 14757
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:03 am
19
Location: Alone and unafraid

#8

Post by frigidmagi »

I will put it bluntly since you seemed to have missed my point has well. It is fucking replacing an estblished craft. It is expected to performed the same fucking role and function. It damn well better be able to stand up to the system it's replacing. The fact that it's new does not mean it's get away scott
free, neither does that fact that it claims to be something new. When two things perform the same function they get compared. Especially when suppose to be a direct replacement of the other.

This is like replacing with M-16 and telling us not to compare the two weapons. It's fucking idiotcy.
"it takes two sides to end a war but only one to start one. And those who do not have swords may still die upon them." Tolken
User avatar
SirNitram
The All-Seeing Eye
Posts: 5178
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:13 pm
19
Location: Behind you, duh!
Contact:

#9

Post by SirNitram »

Lord Stormbringer wrote:I will put this bluntly since you seem to have missed the point made: The Osprey is not a helicopter nor is it an aircraft. It is a hybrid between the two, a realm little explored. Therefor it's reasonable to expect it will have a lot more teething problems than an aircraft of an established type.
It's not an aircraft. Okay, that's pretty funny to hear.

Onwards from simple-level goofups, we reach this simple, blunt point: They need it to do the job of a helo. I don't really care if it's NEW or X-TREME or whatever is supposed to be the excuse. If it's too new, edgy, and untested to be able to compete with it's comtemporaries in the conventional, it has no place holding the lives of men and women who took an oath to protect this country. Period. These guys didn't sign up to die for the next innovation.
Half-Damned, All Hero.

Tev: You're happy. You're Plotting. You're Evil.
Me: Evil is so inappropriate. I'm ruthless.
Tev: You're turning me on.

I Am Rage. You Will Know My Fury.
Ra
Master
Posts: 1643
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:36 am
19
Location: Back?
Contact:

#10

Post by Ra »

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:WAIT, COMANCHE IS CANCELLED??????

:( :cry:

It's not fair. It ain't just fair....
Yes, it was cancelled back in '04. While the idea of a stealth helicopter is cool, this program was plagued by cost overruns and the fact that it had been in the testing phase for nearly 10 years (contract awarded in 1991, IIRC).

Worse, in '02 Boeing introduced a redesign of the tail control mechanism, delaying the Comanche's entry into service even further! That was a change they should have brought in after the machine had entered active service, not during the testing phase. They kept changing the product before it could even be introduced, and DoD canned it. Can't say I blame them.
Jonathan McKenzie
Half-Insane Snakehead | MSPaint Acolyte | Wierd TGOD'er


"Every time you stay abstinent...Kitten kills a god."
User avatar
Lord Stormbringer
The Red Duke
Posts: 231
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:31 am
19

#11

Post by Lord Stormbringer »

SirNitram wrote:
Lord Stormbringer wrote:I will put this bluntly since you seem to have missed the point made: The Osprey is not a helicopter nor is it an aircraft. It is a hybrid between the two, a realm little explored. Therefor it's reasonable to expect it will have a lot more teething problems than an aircraft of an established type.
It's not an aircraft. Okay, that's pretty funny to hear.
Airplane, sorry for the grammatical error. :roll:
SirNitram wrote:Onwards from simple-level goofups, we reach this simple, blunt point: They need it to do the job of a helo.
I agree with you completely. And the question is whether it's presently capable of that. I've heard a lot of people poo-pooing the thing because it has taken longer to develop and proven costly in terms of lives and money. But I have not heard an answer on whether the problems with it have been solved or not.
SirNitram wrote:I don't really care if it's NEW or X-TREME or whatever is supposed to be the excuse. If it's too new, edgy, and untested to be able to compete with it's comtemporaries in the conventional, it has no place holding the lives of men and women who took an oath to protect this country. Period. These guys didn't sign up to die for the next innovation.
If you're talking about guys that are killed because an unready aircraft was sent to service, yes. I couldn't agree with you more on that.

But if you're talking about test pilots, well might I point out that as adults they no doubt know the risk of being a test pilot.

Unfortunately innovation does cost lives when it comes to aircraft but we're not going to get any where at all by doing nothing. Swing wing aircraft, flying wings jets, and manned spaceflight all got off to rocky starts and yet despite losses the projects went on; now they're accepted as normal enough. If the tests pilots are still willing to try and make this work, and so far as I know they are quite willing, then I think it's rather foolish to lambast it so heavily for being an innovation.
Image
User avatar
frigidmagi
Dragon Death-Marine General
Posts: 14757
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:03 am
19
Location: Alone and unafraid

#12

Post by frigidmagi »

[quote=B4UTRUST, A FUCKING AIRMEN]they had to override certain safety locks just to get the thing off the ground. The thing is a flying deathtrapped piece of shit all around. A hydraulics nightmare, a flying fucking target. [/quote]

Stormbringer those safety test they're sooo proud of them passing? Are the same damn ones they had to pass to get into service in the first damn place. So color me unconvinced and unwilling to risk Marines for the Pentagon's pet boondoggle!
"it takes two sides to end a war but only one to start one. And those who do not have swords may still die upon them." Tolken
User avatar
frigidmagi
Dragon Death-Marine General
Posts: 14757
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:03 am
19
Location: Alone and unafraid

#13

Post by frigidmagi »

B4UTRUST, A FUCKING AIRMEN wrote:they had to override certain safety locks just to get the thing off the ground. The thing is a flying deathtrapped piece of shit all around. A hydraulics nightmare, a flying fucking target.
Stormbringer those safety test they're sooo proud of them passing? Are the same damn ones they had to pass to get into service in the first damn place. So color me unconvinced and unwilling to risk Marines for the Pentagon's pet boondoggle!
"it takes two sides to end a war but only one to start one. And those who do not have swords may still die upon them." Tolken
User avatar
Lord Stormbringer
The Red Duke
Posts: 231
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:31 am
19

#14

Post by Lord Stormbringer »

frigidmagi wrote:
B4UTRUST, A FUCKING AIRMEN wrote:they had to override certain safety locks just to get the thing off the ground. The thing is a flying deathtrapped piece of shit all around. A hydraulics nightmare, a flying fucking target.
Stormbringer those safety test they're sooo proud of them passing? Are the same damn ones they had to pass to get into service in the first damn place. So color me unconvinced and unwilling to risk Marines for the Pentagon's pet boondoggle!
If they can't fly safely, they shouldn't be flown in service. It's as simple as that. Never said otherwise.

As for boondoggle or not, all I have to say is that every program is a boondoggle til it actually is in service.


B4Trust:

If you can, just what sort of saftey overrides were they making? And what sort of program were they being put through at the time?
Image
User avatar
B4UTRUST
Dance Puppets Dance
Posts: 4867
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:31 pm
19
Location: Chesapeake, Va
Contact:

#15

Post by B4UTRUST »

Well for one, simply getting the thing to take off required a permanent override of the hydraulic gears that caused the prop sections to rotate.

Originally the thing was designed to take off as a helo, typical VTOL. The props are way to large for the bird, or perhaps not large enough. But they can't take off as a normal plane would with the props forward. They'd hit the ground. So there goes that.

But to take off they have to override the stops on the gears and cause the props to stop at more or less a 45 degree angle, taxi the thing down the runway as quick as they can(which aint that fast) and pretty much hit the props and pray it works. Usually this results in the thing coming down with damage to the hydraulic lines and pumps and fluid leaks of various types due to the stress caused on the system having the frame jerked in a manner that wasn't what it was designed too. It was shown in one test that the result of the crash was because of a crack in the metal holding the prop section to the frame. It happened because of this situation.

The Osprey then climbs up to about as high as feasible in a short amount of time and then drops as they finish rotating the props forward, engage them and pray they pick up the speed neccessary to maintain lift and forward movement.

Originally it was designed that they VTOL up, get up and then drop back down as they rotate the props. Totally unfeasible. Crashed more then 60% of the time doing this. They then figured out the 45 degree angle and had to break safety locks on the hydraulic systems for rotation to get this and keep breaking them every time as they system isn't truely locked at this point, mearly deactivated and shut down so under some circumstances, still movable and dangerously so. But it's the only way they could figure out how to take off.

That's one of the biggies that has been noticed. There are others.
Image
Saint Annihilus - Patron Saint of Dealing with Stupid Customers
User avatar
Josh
Resident of the Kingdom of Eternal Cockjobbery
Posts: 8114
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:51 pm
19
Location: Kingdom of Eternal Cockjobbery

#16

Post by Josh »

Okay, it can't effect forward flight while the props are vertical, and it can't VTOL off the ground...

Yeah, kill this turkey. New systems always have teething problems, but this thing isn't even basically functional.
When the Frog God smiles, arm yourself.
"'Flammable' and 'inflammable' have the same meaning! This language is insane!"
GIVE ME COFFEE AND I WILL ALLOW YOU TO LIVE!- Frigid
"Ork 'as no automatic code o' survival. 'is partic'lar distinction from all udda livin' gits is tha necessity ta act inna face o' alternatives by means o' dakka."
I created the sound of madness, wrote the book on pain
User avatar
Lord Stormbringer
The Red Duke
Posts: 231
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:31 am
19

#17

Post by Lord Stormbringer »

Petrosjko wrote:Okay, it can't effect forward flight while the props are vertical, and it can't VTOL off the ground...

Yeah, kill this turkey. New systems always have teething problems, but this thing isn't even basically functional.
Yeah, it sounds like at best that it need a redesign of some major aspects of it. It doesn't need to be scrapped but it sounds like they have things still to fix.
Image
User avatar
Josh
Resident of the Kingdom of Eternal Cockjobbery
Posts: 8114
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 4:51 pm
19
Location: Kingdom of Eternal Cockjobbery

#18

Post by Josh »

Lord Stormbringer wrote:Yeah, it sounds like at best that it need a redesign of some major aspects of it. It doesn't need to be scrapped but it sounds like they have things still to fix.
By the time you do the redesign, you're probably soaking up enough expense to design a whole new craft, from the sounds of it. I wasn't aware that even if it achieved a VTOL takeoff it had to get to a safe altitude in order to effect a shift to forward flight. That's just grotesque in the sort of tactical environment this thing would be used in, where staying low is the best chance of safety.

Much as I hate helicopters, the goddamned deathtraps, they are the best option here.
When the Frog God smiles, arm yourself.
"'Flammable' and 'inflammable' have the same meaning! This language is insane!"
GIVE ME COFFEE AND I WILL ALLOW YOU TO LIVE!- Frigid
"Ork 'as no automatic code o' survival. 'is partic'lar distinction from all udda livin' gits is tha necessity ta act inna face o' alternatives by means o' dakka."
I created the sound of madness, wrote the book on pain
User avatar
B4UTRUST
Dance Puppets Dance
Posts: 4867
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:31 pm
19
Location: Chesapeake, Va
Contact:

#19

Post by B4UTRUST »

Lets see here...

Cost overruns, unneccessary deaths, lack of proper safety features, a horrible crash record, no real safety features and tons of safety failures, very little armor, lack of mobility, lack of decent avionics, horrible radar system, no TF or TA capabilities to really speak of, constant fluid leaks, numerous prop problems(oversized, engine isn't powerful enough, transfer from vtol to forward is too slow, lack of proper blade blending, etc).

And that's just to name a few. There are others, but some of them I truely can't talk about. Yeah I know that's a form of a cop out but in this case it's the truth. I'm sure FM can vouch for some of this and can understand the OPSEC neccessity.

But needless to say that the money, time, effort and deaths required to fix and overhaul the craft to make it truely flight worthy and a viable mission system is to high. the project should be scraped and the supporters drug out behind a building and shot, cremated and their ashes pissed on. But hey, that's just my opinion i could be wrong.
Image
Saint Annihilus - Patron Saint of Dealing with Stupid Customers
Post Reply