V-22 to go to Iraq

[Cynical Cat]

It's true

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The military's controversial V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft will head to Iraq for its first combat tour later this year, Marine officials announced Friday.

After 18 years and $20 billion in development, the plane will deploy to western Iraq in September to support Marine Corps combat operations for seven months, Marine officials said.

The plane, which is intended to replace the Corps' 40-year-old fleet of CH-46 helicopters by 2018, can fly like a plane and land like a helicopter, giving the Marines more flexibility in the field, officials said.

The V-22 can carry troops three times as far, twice as fast and has six to seven times more survivability than the CH-46 widely used now in Iraq, the military says.

The Osprey's performance has also been noticed by the Air Force, which has plans to use it as a special operations aircraft.

The aircraft has been redesigned after two fatal accidents in 2000 that killed 23 Marines. Accidents in 1991 and 1992 killed seven other people, but Marines say the plane's problems are in the past.

"It's been through extensive operational testing and evaluation, and it is our fervent feeling that this aircraft is the most capable, survivable aircraft that we carry our most important weapon system in, which is the Marine or rifleman, and that we will successfully introduce this aircraft in combat," said Lt. Gen. John G. Castellaw, deputy commandant for aviation.

Critics say the tilt-rotor design may still be too unsafe for the complexities of flying in combat operations.

The Marine Corps maintains it is a much more controllable aircraft in those situations.

Since 2003, the Marines have lost seven aircraft in combat operations. The Marine Corps says the V-22 can better avoid being shot down because it can fly higher than the missiles that have been targeting helicopters. In addition, people on the ground cannot hear the aircraft approaching, giving insurgents less time to prepare to shoot as it flies at low altitude.

"I flown the V-22, and I have taken it and used it in a tactical manner," Castellaw said. "The ability to maneuver this aircraft is far in excess of what we have with the existing helicopters."

As frigid has said, this craft has killed more Marines than most terrorist organizations. frigid, if you cry we won't lose an iota of respect for you. Although mega-hyper rage is more along the lines of what I expect.

[Dark Silver]

The Osprey....

this will be fun

[Ra]

Insurgent: "Can we actually claim responsibility for this, Ahmed? We didn't shoot it down, it literally fell out of the sky!"

Insurgent II: "It was Allah!"

Ahmed: *holds up broken part* "No, it was genuine American craftsmanship. Ha!!!"

Seriously, this piece of shit doesn't need to leave the junkyard, but they insist on forcing it into service. Yes, the Sea Knights are old. But there is a shitload of modern helicopters in the same weight class that are proven, and don't get our boys killed. But I'm preaching to the choir here...[/rant]

[B4UTRUST]

We've got a couple of these deathtraps at my base now. So far the Air Force hasn't crashed one. So maybe they've worked the kinks out of them.

[Batman]

We've got a couple of these deathtraps at my base now. So far the Air Force hasn't crashed one. So maybe they've worked the kinks out of them.

One would hope so given the time and money they've sunk in the project so far. Unfortunately given the history of said project I rather suspect the Air Force just lucked out for the time being.
A pity, really, because not only is the Osprey an (IMHO) visually quite attractive bird, but the concept is sound and DOES have considerable advantages over a regular helicopter.

[B4UTRUST]

The Osprey is quite possibly one of the ugliest bird's I've seen. And I work on 130s. So that's saying something.

Yes, it does have a few advantages over regular helos. It's more manuverable. It's replacing our aging MH-53 fleet.

However, the 22 is a nightmare in the making. I look at this from a maintenance point of view.

In normal aircraft in the AF we use a 5 character Work Unit Code to designate parts of the air craft. All your line replaceable units, your screens, your displays, guages, etc. We don't list panels because panels are interchangable and not individually marked for WUC, rather every type of panel is coded. So for a side panel on either side of the interior of the plane, front or back, there's a single WUC to order them. One panel fits all type of thing.

However, on a CV-22, EVERY panel is individually coded and identified. There is nothing interchangable or modifiable. Therefore, on the CV-22 you now have a 14character WUC. Every individual panel has its own WUC. This prevents many things. Such as direct canibalization from other aircraft, canibalization of non critical location parts to replace a critical location part, etc.

Flying wise it may have worked out the kinks and actually have become a viable airframe for use, but in maintenance practices from what I've seen so far it's a nightmare and then some.

[frigidmagi]

I am literally at a lost for words to describe my thoughts on this. All I can say is that it is deeply strange to me that if a group of Marines were to kill the fucking assine donkeycock suckers who made this piece of shit moronic display of a desicision, they would be the ones to go to jail instead of the rest of the Pentagon for not doing it sooner.

Someone remind me who the enemy is, I find myself forgetting.

[B4UTRUST]

Now now Frigid, we both know the US has a horrible history of friendly fire. This is just preemptive friendly fire. The Pentagon figures we'll save tons of money by not wasting ammunition having to shoot down our own birds. They'll just crash on their own.

[Batman]

The Osprey is quite possibly one of the ugliest bird's I've seen. And I work on 130s. So that's saying something.

I think the relativity of aircraft beauty has been elaborated on sufficiently in the fighter threads. Though I fail to see what's so disagreeable about the Hercules' visuals.

Yes, it does have a few advantages over regular helos. It's more manuverable. It's replacing our aging MH-53 fleet.
However, the 22 is a nightmare in the making. I look at this from a maintenance point of view.

Notice how I never said the V-22 was a good idea. The concept is.

In normal aircraft in the AF we use a 5 character Work Unit Code to designate parts of the air craft. All your line replaceable units, your screens, your displays, guages, etc. We don't list panels because panels are interchangable and not individually marked for WUC, rather every type of panel is coded. So for a side panel on either side of the interior of the plane, front or back, there's a single WUC to order them. One panel fits all type of thing.
However, on a CV-22, EVERY panel is individually coded and identified. There is nothing interchangable or modifiable. Therefore, on the CV-22 you now have a 14character WUC. Every individual panel has its own WUC. This prevents many things. Such as direct canibalization from other aircraft, canibalization of non critical location parts to replace a critical location part, etc.
Flying wise it may have worked out the kinks and actually have become a viable airframe for use, but in maintenance practices from what I've seen so far it's a nightmare and then some.

IOW ON TOP OF whatever inherent problems a tilt rotor may have presented, they chose to make life even more miserable on the people who have to keep the Valendamned things airborne in the first place (for no apparent leave alone fathomable reason, it seems).
Wasn't beurocracy a wonderful invention?

[The Silence and I]

Regarding anger and disappointment: 'meh.' From what I've heard and seen the current beast is a completely new aircraft from the one that killed so many. I'm not going to judge it by its distantly related ancestor--that would be unfair of me.

It is also beautiful in my eyes, and it promises to offer a huge increase in functionality -- and yes, safety -- over the status quo. The folks working on it seem to really believe in it and its track record is perfect AFAIK (recall: I am talking about the current version, which is a ground up redesign around the original concept). I am not about to dismiss it over the opinions of those who have built it and flown it because a previous incarnation failed. Has it passed suitable testing yet? Maybe, maybe not, but it absolutely has not failed.

[frigidmagi]

From what I've heard and seen the current beast is a completely new aircraft from the one that killed so many. I'm not going to judge it by its distantly related ancestor--that would be unfair of me.

You are young and civie so I will be attempt to be merciful here. You did not experience the full up-roar that occured. It got so bad that the Marine Times was slinging accusications (later proven true) of lies, scandal and corruption.

To be blunt.

This is not a device that failed it first attempt at the test runs. This is a device that we were told passed all tests with flying colors. We were told this by the officer corps in charge of testing. The same morons telling us it's fine now. Let me repeat that.

THE SAME GROUP OF ASSHOLES THAT UNLEASHED THIS THING ON US IN THE FIRST PLACE IS CLAIMING IT'S FIXED! Tatto that on your arm, it's importent.

So why the fuck should I believe a single peice of hot air coming from those blow holes?

Plus did you even bother to read B4's post? How about listening to the guy who actually worked on it. It's shit. Get Rid of It. Fuck how nice you think the fucking thing looks or how shiney it is. It's Shit.

I'll make a point Nitram did to me earlier. Iraq is fucking hard on Rotors and moving parts. This shit stain is nothing but moving parts, most of which have never worked.

[B4UTRUST]

Distantly related ancestor?

If you were comparing this to say a FW 61 then I'd grant you the ancestor bit.

THIS IS THE SAME FUCKING BIRD!

This is the same flying deathtrap from 20 years ago!

Look, I've got a handful of these things on my base. I watch these things take off, fly and land. I've talked to the flightline and backshop maintenance techs, the flight crew and the contractors for them.

Hell we had to ground the entire fucking fleet of them only two months ago because of flight control problems!

It offers no additional functionality over our current existing MH-53 fleet. Both serve the same mission: Carrying troops and equipment. It just happens to do it in a newwer vehicle then our 53's.

Safety... Yeah... we'll talk about safety. About two weeks ago there was a hydraulic leak(And search on LA for previous discussions about this deathtrap and you'll see my notes on the hydraulics nightmare that this contraption is!) that resulted in a fire in the engine compartment. Now, fortunatly, this happened prior to take off. But just prior. They were getting ready to taxi out. Three minutes later and there would have been a funeral.

Oh, BTW, that engine fire was based on NEW SAFETY DESIGNS! It was discovered after a fatal engine fire in 1992 that fluids draining or leaking into the engine compartment would cause fires. So they built drains into the engine compartment to leak fluids so they wouldn't catch on fire. However, where the hydraulic fluid would leak out would STILL CAUSE ENGINE FIRES. AND THIS IS KNOWN!

Last year a cannon plug going to their FADEC system caused the aircraft to go airbone... WHILE IT WAS IN IDLE. It was airborne for 2 seconds and 30ft up when the FADEC kicked in and recognized the error and reduced engine speed back to idle. The Osprey lost a wing and suffered over $12 million in damages. There was a crew aboard at the time.

Lets see... there was the compressor stalls in the right engine that showed up during the first transatlantic flight. Because stalling your engine is ALWAYS SAFE. Especially while halfway across the fucking ocean. The problem was not a remote incident and the issue was shown to happen in every Osprey varient including the MV-22, CV-22, and HV-22.

Now, show me where ANY of this is safe. Any of it. Stalled engine compressors. Engines lighting on fire. The thing taking off while in idle. Control systems going haywire while in flight.

This is NOT a ground up redesign as you seem to believe it is. There was never a redesign. There was varients made, yes. These were for the different services and for different purposes. We have never ground up redesigned this deathtrap. This thing has been overbudget since it's inception over 20 years ago. We couldn't afford to do a ground up redesign nor would Bell-Boeing do it!

This is the same fucking flying death trap that people were ordered to falsify the maintenance records on just so this thing could get through the fucking test runs! Yes, that's right. Maintenance personal doing the same job I do in my every day life were ordered by the higher ups to falsify the data to make it appear safer then it was.

So there's your safe, reliable and functional piece of flying shit Silence.

[SirNitram]

Let us, hypothetically, pretend we can trust the V-22 'Osprey' Tilt-rotor transport. That it is not a fundamentally flawed, dangerous peice of machinery that was reduced from hovering and providing heavy weapon support to it's Marines, to attacking the enemy by falling out of the sky and hopefully hitting someone.

In this alternate reality where there is some credibility within those that produced the V-22, we can consider it to work as optimally as it's design can allow. What does this leave us with? A craft which has no business in Iraq. Period.

It's design has wavered between totally unarmed or equipped with a minimal turret gun that will not effectively deter enemy fire when it comes in for VTOL ops. Due to the decreased speed during VTOL operations, the large, plane-like profile will attract weapons fire, most likely in the form of RPG-7's or Stinger missiles. While capable of evading AA fire while in flight position, it's vertical position is incredibly vunerable.

Further, the tilt-rotor concept itself is incredibly delicate, mechanically speaking. It must use large rotors, which will get clogged with sand. It's tilting wings will get clogged with sand. Virtually every aspect of this vehicle will, in fact, get full of sand. This is normal. This is a reality of desert combat.

And finally, in a Marine Corps stretched to it's operational limits(They now are giving up their standard training operations to operate as the USA's shock troops, simply to keep up with the precious 'Surge'), deployed in a mission it is not intended to(The Marines are not occupying soldiers, and were never intended to be), fighting an enemy they have not been preparing for(Counterinsurgency and occupation were not on the US Military's books for extended operations), after several years of being screwed by one politician(Junior), feeling they may get pulled out before they can acheive their mission by others(The Democratic Congress), and suffering endless supply shortfalls...

You have just given them a bird that is basically the Death of Marines, only without the cool cloak and he ain't takin' them to Valhalla for hot blonde chicks.

Morale problems will only worsen.

[Cpl Kendall]

Everything that needs to be said on this issue has been said so I'll only add this: all this will do is save the Iraqi's money on MANPAD's and RPG's by falling out of the sky.

[Hotfoot]

Fucking hell, what's wrong with all of you? It looks cool, and we always see it kicking ass on TV when they're plugging it, and it's the fucking personal aircraft for Sam Fisher! Yes, that's right, I went there. Sam Fucking Fisher. Since when has ANY new weapon, technology, or vehicle pulled from real life for a game ever proven to be ineffective? I mean this is Tom Clancy stuff here, and we know how realistic that is. If Clancy put it in, you can damn well bet because it's going to be implemented in the next few years.

And why would TV or videogames be a lie?

[SirNitram]

And why would TV or videogames be a lie?

No British family by the name of Croft has a buxom, treasure-hunting, gun-toting matriarch.

Dammit, that felt like kicking a puppy.

[The Silence and I]

To be blunt.

If I had a dime every time you typed that...

This is not a device that failed it first attempt at the test runs. This is a device that we were told passed all tests with flying colors. We were told this by the officer corps in charge of testing. The same morons telling us it's fine now. Let me repeat that.

This I did not know. Wow. Hmm.

So why the fuck should I believe a single peice of hot air coming from those blow holes?

Given the track record you just summarized, I cannot say you should, and no longer do myself. I was under the impression something went wrong in testing and they spent a while fixing it, never had I heard (I suppose that's not surprising--the PR guys aren't going to proudly boast about their own fatal lies) it was passed in so shabby a condition.

Distantly related ancestor?

If you were comparing this to say a FW 61 then I'd grant you the ancestor bit.

THIS IS THE SAME FUCKING BIRD!

This is the same flying deathtrap from 20 years ago!

This is what I get for listening to people with a history of lying
If I could ask a question: what have they been doing for the past 20 years?

It offers no additional functionality over our current existing MH-53 fleet. Both serve the same mission: Carrying troops and equipment. It just happens to do it in a newwer vehicle then our 53's.

Ok, look, bash the bird all you want (it looks like I may have to join in now) but unless everything reported to me is a lie it does have more range and speed. That is added functionality. Now, if it can't stay in the air... *shrug* no good.

Safety... Yeah... we'll talk about safety.
<snip a lot of things I'm not sure I wanted to know>

Color me surprised and embarrassed

This is NOT a ground up redesign as you seem to believe it is. There was never a redesign. There was varients made, yes. These were for the different services and for different purposes. We have never ground up redesigned this deathtrap. This thing has been overbudget since it's inception over 20 years ago. We couldn't afford to do a ground up redesign nor would Bell-Boeing do it!

This is the same fucking flying death trap that people were ordered to falsify the maintenance records on just so this thing could get through the fucking test runs! Yes, that's right. Maintenance personal doing the same job I do in my every day life were ordered by the higher ups to falsify the data to make it appear safer then it was.

Same question again, just what the hell have they been doing for all this time? Wasting time building variants of the faulty craft instead of fixing it?

To Nitram:
Good thoughts with the sand in the mechanisms problem. Even a properly built craft could have serious problems there, now that you mention it I'm even a little surprised I haven't heard of more helicopters falling out the sky.

[B4UTRUST]

Silence, you have to realize something crucial about the V-22 project. It was overbudget by 26.5billion dollars in less then 2 years after its initial planning in 1986. In 1988 it had exceeded 30billion in costs. The costs just got higher as it went on. The reason behind this, seemingly, is that parts for this aircraft are manufactured in 48 of the 50 states, giving each state a chunk of that $80million per Osprey budget. Plus you have to consider that the longer that this monstrocity was in development the more it went over budget. After so long it was seen that if we were to scrap the project that billions upon billions would have been wasted.

If you look back over the restrictions placed on the OT&E for this thing it reveals even more about what has been happening.

Such restrictions included not hovering over water, over unprepared landing areas, no boarding or offloading of personel while in testing(which ironically is one of the primary functions of the damned thing), and other such niceities.

Now as to what exactly they've been doing. They crashed the first Osprey in 91. It's been downhill ever since. Basically instead of scrapping the project, which should have been done almost two decades ago, everytime they crash one or one malfunctions they find the cause and figure out some work around or solution to it. Which has lead to it going further over budget. Which lead to an increased lack of desire to scrap the project.

But this is just my take on the actual accounts. We do know they fixed issues as the came up and it was sometimes years beween test flights so they did do some work supposedly. As for Congressional reasons, I'm only guessing.

[B4UTRUST]

AFSOC Chief Sings Osprey's Praise

The head of Air Force Special Operations Command gave a strong endorsement Wednesday for the special operations variant of the V-22 Osprey, saying it's as safe to fly as a commercial airliner.

Calling the CV-22 "a wonderful airplane," Lt. Gen. Mike Wooley said his command is confident the hybrid aircraft has emerged from its troubled history of crashes and fatalities and will deliver a "transformational leap" to commandos for their covert missions.

"The thing that we're excited about that the airplane brings to the fight is speed and range," Wooley said at a May 9 breakfast meeting with reporters in Washington. "When you really get down to it, that's what the Air Force does: bring speed and range to the fight."

Controversy swirled around the Osprey program for years after two crashes in 2000 killed 23 Marines. The deadly incidents grounded the transport and sent the program back to the drawing board, forcing the Air Force and Navy - which is buying the Osprey to replace a portion of its search and rescue helicopter fleet - to mute their enthusiasm for the new transport.

But citing the Air Force's checkered history converting from a prop-driven aircraft fleet to jets, Wooley brushed aside the Osprey's past problems, saying the Navy and Marine Corps had worked out the kinks over the past several years of re-engineering.

"Any time you take a transformational leap in the aviation business, there is going to be stuff that you are going to learn literally on the fly … it's a shame that there were lives lost," Wooley admitted.

"It's no different from jumping on a [Boeing] 777, an AC-130 [gunship] or a CV-22 - something could slip, break or come loose at any time," he added. "But that's the aviation business."

The Marine Corps - which is purchasing the MV-22 to replace its fleet of Vietnam-era CH-46 Sea Knight transports - announced April 16 it planned to deploy the first operational Osprey squadron to Iraq in September. The announcement surprised critics of the program who speculated the Corps would send the Osprey on a lower-profile assignment, such as supporting operations in Djibouti.

Air Force spec ops pilots should get their first operational CV-22s by 2009, filling out the 50 aircraft buy in 2018. But that's not soon enough for Wooley who said the delay is "my biggest concern with that airplane."

The AFSOC CV-22 will employ four crewmembers, adding a flight engineer to the mix. The Corps uses a three-man crew during its operations.

"Our machines are pretty dang complicated," Wooley admitted. "But they're pretty dang complicated because we designed them."

Wooley said the complexity of the flight systems needed for spec ops missions demanded the extra manpower "because there's a lot going on in the cockpit" and was not an indication that the Osprey was any more difficult to fly than other conventional transports.

The AFSOC version of the Osprey may also differ from the Corps' MV-22 by incorporating a chin-mounted gun - a modification the Air Force requested. The Corps will use a .50 cal machine gun mounted on the Osprey's loading ramp for fire suppression in a hot landing zone.

Wooley said he's sending an Air Force team with the Marine squadron heading to Iraq this fall to learn what he can from the first deployment in hopes of making AFSOC's eventual stint in the combat zone error-free.

"We want to be there to learn those lessons the same time the Marines learn theirs," Wooley said.

Yes, this is my boss, my wing king reporting from my base. And by the gods I am embarassed to see this. But that's ok, I never really did like the guy. He's from Big Blue, not AFSOC.

But I love how he compared the safety of the CV-22 to that of a civilian aircraft. I'm now scared shitless to fly back home on Saturday!

So yes, the people I work for are not to be trusted. Thank you military.com for reminding me of this!

[Cpl Kendall]

Oh fuck he used "transformational", so everybody either take a drink or put your helmets on because the shit's about to hit the fan. Everytime I've heard that phrase connected with a piece of kit it's guaranteed not to work as advertised. And will often fail in a spectacular manner.

[Batman]

Of course there's going to be problems with any new aircraft, especially if it's a new type of aircraft. But if after two decades worth of development and a double-figure billion amount of dollars having been spent on it the problem still persists, there is something inherently wrong with either the concept or your way of going about making it work.
At least jets where new technology back when the Air Force made the transition. Tilt-rotors have been around since the 1950s.

[SirNitram]

Of course there's going to be problems with any new aircraft, especially if it's a new type of aircraft. But if after two decades worth of development and a double-figure billion amount of dollars having been spent on it the problem still persists, there is something inherently wrong with either the concept or your way of going about making it work.
At least jets where new technology back when the Air Force made the transition. Tilt-rotors have been around since the 1950s.

Congratulations! You just realized what we've all been saying: The Osprey is fundamentally flawed from the onset!

[Batman]

Of course there's going to be problems with any new aircraft, especially if it's a new type of aircraft. But if after two decades worth of development and a double-figure billion amount of dollars having been spent on it the problem still persists, there is something inherently wrong with either the concept or your way of going about making it work.
At least jets where new technology back when the Air Force made the transition. Tilt-rotors have been around since the 1950s.

Congratulations! You just realized what we've all been saying: The Osprey is fundamentally flawed from the onset!

And I've doubted that-where, exactly?