What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?
Hmm, something's fishy. Why is it that the Marines cannot say with accuracy how many V-22's they have? Why are they evasive on this? Why did Lt. Gen. Trautman say in his prepared statement that the Marines have only taken delivery of 91 V-22's? A full year ago he was at a ceremony for the delivery of the 100th V-22. Say what?
We're not talking about thousands of Hueys distributed around the world. We're talking about a 114 or so aircraft, all of which right now are in the U.S.! (Although to be fair, some of them are on the USS Bataan and so are not physically on U.S. soil.)
Okay, very simply: How many V-22's do the Marines have? How many of them are still flyable?
This part is really disturbing. On one random day, the Marines reported on the readiness of their V-22 fleet.
"Of the 47 combat deployable, only 22 were mission capable on June 3, 2009."
So...the Marines have taken delivery of around 114 Ospreys. Yet only 47 are "combat deployable." And of them, only 22 were actually mission capable. (And just what exactly is "combat deployable" anyway? What do they have to do to an Osprey to make it ready for combat?)
Something is going on that we're not being told.
Okay, here comes the opinion part...
My suspicion is that it's the actual aircraft structure itself - all that weight out on the end of those wings. I'll bet that it's causing unrepairable problems with the spar as it interacts with that composite fuselage. I believe that the Marines have found a serious structural weakness and that the V-22's are not lasting nearly as long as anticipated. My suspicion is that there are big structural problems with the V-22 that are being covered up because, perhaps, they know that if this information becomes public it will kill the program.
But think about it: 47 airworthy aircraft out of 114 delivered. Less than half. And NONE of them have been shot down. What are we missing here?
We're not talking about thousands of Hueys distributed around the world. We're talking about a 114 or so aircraft, all of which right now are in the U.S.! (Although to be fair, some of them are on the USS Bataan and so are not physically on U.S. soil.)
Okay, very simply: How many V-22's do the Marines have? How many of them are still flyable?
This part is really disturbing. On one random day, the Marines reported on the readiness of their V-22 fleet.
"Of the 47 combat deployable, only 22 were mission capable on June 3, 2009."
So...the Marines have taken delivery of around 114 Ospreys. Yet only 47 are "combat deployable." And of them, only 22 were actually mission capable. (And just what exactly is "combat deployable" anyway? What do they have to do to an Osprey to make it ready for combat?)
Something is going on that we're not being told.
Okay, here comes the opinion part...
My suspicion is that it's the actual aircraft structure itself - all that weight out on the end of those wings. I'll bet that it's causing unrepairable problems with the spar as it interacts with that composite fuselage. I believe that the Marines have found a serious structural weakness and that the V-22's are not lasting nearly as long as anticipated. My suspicion is that there are big structural problems with the V-22 that are being covered up because, perhaps, they know that if this information becomes public it will kill the program.
But think about it: 47 airworthy aircraft out of 114 delivered. Less than half. And NONE of them have been shot down. What are we missing here?
Funny thing ain't it!
The inventory list of Osprey's is "classified" and cannot be released to Congress. Make's one wonder about the power of Congress then in my view.
I know for a fact....straight from a USMC Maintenance Officer who is tasked with the reporting.....every day....365 days a year....each aircraft's status is reported to USMCHQ.
They know exactly how many they have, where they are located, and exactly what status they are in.....every day!
When I was a NCIS Special Agent.....we investigated stolen/missing Angle Grinders.....so I know a missing MV-22 would qualify for an investigation.
Where's Mark Harmon on this the world wonders?
Heck, the Navy Audit Service has the ability to do an inventory and readiness audit if requested by the appropriate authority.
By the way....."Mission Capable" in Marine jargon means "being able to carry out at least one (operative word...."ONE") of the aircraft's assigned missions.
That means it can get off the ground under its own power, even if only to fly a circuit for "training" so the pilots can earn their monthly flight pay.
The inventory list of Osprey's is "classified" and cannot be released to Congress. Make's one wonder about the power of Congress then in my view.
I know for a fact....straight from a USMC Maintenance Officer who is tasked with the reporting.....every day....365 days a year....each aircraft's status is reported to USMCHQ.
They know exactly how many they have, where they are located, and exactly what status they are in.....every day!
When I was a NCIS Special Agent.....we investigated stolen/missing Angle Grinders.....so I know a missing MV-22 would qualify for an investigation.
Where's Mark Harmon on this the world wonders?
Heck, the Navy Audit Service has the ability to do an inventory and readiness audit if requested by the appropriate authority.
By the way....."Mission Capable" in Marine jargon means "being able to carry out at least one (operative word...."ONE") of the aircraft's assigned missions.
That means it can get off the ground under its own power, even if only to fly a circuit for "training" so the pilots can earn their monthly flight pay.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DoD Hangar of Shame
Worried Murtha Checking MV-22
By Colin Clark Wednesday, June 24th, 2009 5:13 pm
Posted in Air, Naval, Policy
A retired Marine who also happens to be one of the most powerful defense lawmakers, Rep. Jack Murtha, has begun raising questions about the future of the Osprey MV-22 The chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee told our own Christian Lowe this morning that he plans to go down to Camp Lejeune in the next few weeks to do a reality check. “That’s where I’m going to find out what the hell is happening,” the ever-blunt Murtha said.
“The military tends to give you nothing but optimistic portrayals,” he added. “They have been telling me the V-22 was doing fine.” Well, not so much, as was made clear at yesterday’s hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The Osprey does face “severe maintenance problems,” Murtha said, adding that they are to be expected in the early stages of an aircraft’s deployment.
While he said “it’s just too early to know” just what to do about the aircraft, Murtha also made pretty clear that he does not think it necessary to shut down production of the MV-22, as his colleague, Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said yesterday. “At this point we are committed and we have to go forward with the V-22,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Marines began their counterattack designed to rescue the hostage MV-22. I spoke for about an hour this afternoon with Lt. Col. Rob Freeland, an Osprey pilot with about 1,000 hours on the plane.
He made it very clear that the Marines are doing everything they can to bring down maintenance costs. The GAO report presented at yesterday’s hearing claimed the current cost per flight hour of the “MV-22 today is over $11,000—more than double the target estimate and 140 percent higher than the cost for the CH-46E.” Freeland said the flying hour cost for the B model — the plane that is flying in combat — is closer to $9,700 and will come down over the next two to four years as the Marines implement a range of engineering change orders and craft a maintenance contract.
Among the engineering changes the Marines have recently made to save money, Freeland listed infrared suppressor panels. “We used to replace those at $110,000 a piece. That’s because we didn’t expect them to break,” he said. Now the service is repairing them for $10,000 per unit. In addition, they have developed $10,000 repair procedures for flaperons that they used to replace $280,000 a pop. And Coanda valves will be repaired for $5,000 instead of replacing them for $27,000.
“We know we are on a path that will get us there,” to lower maintenance costs, he said. The performance based maintenance contract currently being negotiated will lead to the longest lasting and most substantial savings over time, he predicted. Due to be signed in 2010, that contract should start showing substantial savings after three years.
There was one other major issue that has dogged the Marines before and during yesterday’s hearing — just how many Ospreys actually fly. Here’s the service’s breakdown. Of the 94 aircraft looked at on 3 June by the committee, 48 are Block B, 29 are Block A, and 17 are pre-Block A.
There are 48 Block B aircraft — 47 on June 3. Those are the planes flying day to day.
Of the 17 pre-Block A, one is a developmental test plane, two were destroyed in the 2000 crashes, six have been turned into trainers, one was sent to the Air Force, two are being modified to a Block B configuration, and five are in storage. Those storage aircraft are pre-Block A aircraft. The Marines say they were going to be modified to Block B, but decided against that because the costs were just too high. They will probably be turned into trainers.
Of the 29 Block A’s, nine are being modified to the Block B variant.
Folks who believe there is a Hangar of Shame with dozens of planes in it will be disappointed to learn that, according to Freeland, those five aircraft are the only ones in some sort of storage. Occasionally, a single part does get cannibalized from them but they are by no means being stripped for parts to keep the fleet flying, he said.
Now we wait for Murtha’s visit.
By Colin Clark Wednesday, June 24th, 2009 5:13 pm
Posted in Air, Naval, Policy
A retired Marine who also happens to be one of the most powerful defense lawmakers, Rep. Jack Murtha, has begun raising questions about the future of the Osprey MV-22 The chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee told our own Christian Lowe this morning that he plans to go down to Camp Lejeune in the next few weeks to do a reality check. “That’s where I’m going to find out what the hell is happening,” the ever-blunt Murtha said.
“The military tends to give you nothing but optimistic portrayals,” he added. “They have been telling me the V-22 was doing fine.” Well, not so much, as was made clear at yesterday’s hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The Osprey does face “severe maintenance problems,” Murtha said, adding that they are to be expected in the early stages of an aircraft’s deployment.
While he said “it’s just too early to know” just what to do about the aircraft, Murtha also made pretty clear that he does not think it necessary to shut down production of the MV-22, as his colleague, Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said yesterday. “At this point we are committed and we have to go forward with the V-22,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Marines began their counterattack designed to rescue the hostage MV-22. I spoke for about an hour this afternoon with Lt. Col. Rob Freeland, an Osprey pilot with about 1,000 hours on the plane.
He made it very clear that the Marines are doing everything they can to bring down maintenance costs. The GAO report presented at yesterday’s hearing claimed the current cost per flight hour of the “MV-22 today is over $11,000—more than double the target estimate and 140 percent higher than the cost for the CH-46E.” Freeland said the flying hour cost for the B model — the plane that is flying in combat — is closer to $9,700 and will come down over the next two to four years as the Marines implement a range of engineering change orders and craft a maintenance contract.
Among the engineering changes the Marines have recently made to save money, Freeland listed infrared suppressor panels. “We used to replace those at $110,000 a piece. That’s because we didn’t expect them to break,” he said. Now the service is repairing them for $10,000 per unit. In addition, they have developed $10,000 repair procedures for flaperons that they used to replace $280,000 a pop. And Coanda valves will be repaired for $5,000 instead of replacing them for $27,000.
“We know we are on a path that will get us there,” to lower maintenance costs, he said. The performance based maintenance contract currently being negotiated will lead to the longest lasting and most substantial savings over time, he predicted. Due to be signed in 2010, that contract should start showing substantial savings after three years.
There was one other major issue that has dogged the Marines before and during yesterday’s hearing — just how many Ospreys actually fly. Here’s the service’s breakdown. Of the 94 aircraft looked at on 3 June by the committee, 48 are Block B, 29 are Block A, and 17 are pre-Block A.
There are 48 Block B aircraft — 47 on June 3. Those are the planes flying day to day.
Of the 17 pre-Block A, one is a developmental test plane, two were destroyed in the 2000 crashes, six have been turned into trainers, one was sent to the Air Force, two are being modified to a Block B configuration, and five are in storage. Those storage aircraft are pre-Block A aircraft. The Marines say they were going to be modified to Block B, but decided against that because the costs were just too high. They will probably be turned into trainers.
Of the 29 Block A’s, nine are being modified to the Block B variant.
Folks who believe there is a Hangar of Shame with dozens of planes in it will be disappointed to learn that, according to Freeland, those five aircraft are the only ones in some sort of storage. Occasionally, a single part does get cannibalized from them but they are by no means being stripped for parts to keep the fleet flying, he said.
Now we wait for Murtha’s visit.
Occasionally, a single part does get cannibalized from them but they are by no means being stripped for parts to keep the fleet flying, he said.
First off.....who can believe anything that spineless, corrupt, two faced lying weasel Murtha says?
Also....anyone with more than a few days in aviation know very well about "Hangar Queens" that slowly begin to look like the picked carcass of a dead critter if left in a U/S condition in the hangar for anytime at all.
I'll bet some Marines are looking under rugs for U/S bits to put back on some Osprey's as we speak....so the machines look in good condition.
I know....we played that game in the Army with Chinooks too!
For you folks that know not of Murtha (the only EX-MARINE I know of....)read up on Charlie Wilson, Abscam, the deal Tip O'Neill made with Wilson to protect Murtha,Haditha and the Marines acquitted of all charges despite Murtha proclaiming them guilty as sin (before the investigation even began) before giving that fat assed windbag any credence at all.
Murtha:
When you start an investigation with an assumption, why even bother asking any questions?
I guess reporter Colin Clark just took Lt. Col. Freeland at his word and never bothered to check or ask for verification of that. Good reporter! With instincts like that, he should receive some sort of "Woodward and Bernstein" award.
Last month on 23June, Lt. Gen. Trautman said that the USMC had taken delivery of only 91 Ospreys. But even before that the Marines were saying 94. According to a GAO memo dated 19June, the committee seems to think the number is 105. Budgetary allocations say that the Marines should have around 114 by now. Why the discrepancy? Why can't we get accurate numbers on this aircraft?
Again, very simply: HOW MANY OSPREYS HAVE THE U.S. MARINES TAKEN DELIVERY OF?
“At this point we are committed and we have to go forward with the V-22,” he said.
There was one other major issue that has dogged the Marines before and during yesterday’s hearing — just how many Ospreys actually fly. Here’s the service’s breakdown. Of the 94 aircraft looked at on 3 June by the committee, 48 are Block B, 29 are Block A, and 17 are pre-Block A.
There are 48 Block B aircraft — 47 on June 3. Those are the planes flying day to day.
Of the 17 pre-Block A, one is a developmental test plane, two were destroyed in the 2000 crashes, six have been turned into trainers, one was sent to the Air Force, two are being modified to a Block B configuration, and five are in storage. Those storage aircraft are pre-Block A aircraft. The Marines say they were going to be modified to Block B, but decided against that because the costs were just too high. They will probably be turned into trainers.
Of the 29 Block A’s, nine are being modified to the Block B variant.
Folks who believe there is a Hangar of Shame with dozens of planes in it will be disappointed to learn that, according to Freeland, those five aircraft are the only ones in some sort of storage.
There are 48 Block B aircraft — 47 on June 3. Those are the planes flying day to day.
Of the 17 pre-Block A, one is a developmental test plane, two were destroyed in the 2000 crashes, six have been turned into trainers, one was sent to the Air Force, two are being modified to a Block B configuration, and five are in storage. Those storage aircraft are pre-Block A aircraft. The Marines say they were going to be modified to Block B, but decided against that because the costs were just too high. They will probably be turned into trainers.
Of the 29 Block A’s, nine are being modified to the Block B variant.
Folks who believe there is a Hangar of Shame with dozens of planes in it will be disappointed to learn that, according to Freeland, those five aircraft are the only ones in some sort of storage.
Last month on 23June, Lt. Gen. Trautman said that the USMC had taken delivery of only 91 Ospreys. But even before that the Marines were saying 94. According to a GAO memo dated 19June, the committee seems to think the number is 105. Budgetary allocations say that the Marines should have around 114 by now. Why the discrepancy? Why can't we get accurate numbers on this aircraft?
Again, very simply: HOW MANY OSPREYS HAVE THE U.S. MARINES TAKEN DELIVERY OF?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: All The Places I Shouldnt Be
Posts: 1,009
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got to spend 2 and a bit hours in the V22 sim here at Kirtland AFB today. 
Flying in it tomorrow for a two ship air to air shoot including desert landings and formation low level.
Ned
Flying in it tomorrow for a two ship air to air shoot including desert landings and formation low level.
Ned
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Giovanni de Briganti at Rotor&Wing has an interesting opinion on this: V-22: It's Time to Move On
What of the Hangar Queen's little brother.....the 609?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
For many years, as a FW/RW pilot I wanted to fly tilt-rotor; I believed the hype. Back then the argument was who would be best able to fly it - a fixed wing pilot, or a helicopter pilot.
Reality kicked in when I saw that the whole design concept is flawed, too complicated and too expensive. The only advantage is it's higher cruise speed, it loses out everywhere else to helicopters, both in cost and in performance.
Despite some at the top of the tree having made a career out of the concept, and being duty bound to show that it can work, it's broken.
They tried to build a Ferrari to do the work of a LandRover.
Reality kicked in when I saw that the whole design concept is flawed, too complicated and too expensive. The only advantage is it's higher cruise speed, it loses out everywhere else to helicopters, both in cost and in performance.
Despite some at the top of the tree having made a career out of the concept, and being duty bound to show that it can work, it's broken.
They tried to build a Ferrari to do the work of a LandRover.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to have BOTH a Ferrari and a LandRover in my garage if I could afford them. I would choose which one to use each day based on whether I was taking a long highway trip (without speed limits), or doing a desert safari, or something in between.
The US military/US taxpayer has a lot more money than I do, and they have much more important missions to persue. For military missions there are times when a Ferrari equivalent is needed, and there are more times when a LandRover equivalent is needed. I hope they create the correct ratio mix, and I would encourage oversight from Congress and others to make sure that they make the right decisions so that commanders in the field can call on the right aircraft for the required mission.
The US military/US taxpayer has a lot more money than I do, and they have much more important missions to persue. For military missions there are times when a Ferrari equivalent is needed, and there are more times when a LandRover equivalent is needed. I hope they create the correct ratio mix, and I would encourage oversight from Congress and others to make sure that they make the right decisions so that commanders in the field can call on the right aircraft for the required mission.
Last edited by 21stCen; 30th Jul 2009 at 19:25.
Sorry mate but we are purely skint! Have you not read of our small problem with debt and deficit spending of late?
As to giving any credence whatsoever to the thought our Congress is capable of any kind of oversight would be simple lunacy.
As to giving any credence whatsoever to the thought our Congress is capable of any kind of oversight would be simple lunacy.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm. Then the latest edition of Defence Helicopter has this rather glowing report (on page 29): A quiet triumph of American resolve
#18
Response to SASless: the USMC Osprey replaced the CH-46, and was never meant to replace CH-53, nor CH-47.
(That it may or may not be worth the dough is a matter I won't waste time on, as the Marines got what they wanted, in the end.)
Response to SASless: the USMC Osprey replaced the CH-46, and was never meant to replace CH-53, nor CH-47.
(That it may or may not be worth the dough is a matter I won't waste time on, as the Marines got what they wanted, in the end.)
Lonewolf,
You are new to the forum....welcome.
As to the Osprey not replacing the CH-53....you are incorrect. The Osprey by numerous official sources was/is to replace the CH-53D and the CH-46.
You are new to the forum....welcome.
As to the Osprey not replacing the CH-53....you are incorrect. The Osprey by numerous official sources was/is to replace the CH-53D and the CH-46.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Maryland
Age: 63
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New guy, first and maybe last post.
I stumbled on your forum, and don't really intend to hang out here, but I was compelled to address at least one of the whacked out accusations.
SASless, Dan and FH101
I've read through many of your posts in this thread, and I don't really know where to begin. Not that it will matter, because you've already made up your minds and cannot be bothered with any facts that don't fit your predetermined world-view.
I can agree that our congress is not capable of any oversight, but that's probably as far as I can go.
Let me start by saying there are no "missing" V-22s, I'm pretty sure there are no aliens in a hangar in Ohio either, but if I find a link to an article that says otherwise, will you take that as gospel also?
Bell/Boeing began counting Ospreys with FSD a/c 1 (first flew in March '89). It was the first of 6 Full Scale Development aircraft. They were hand built prototypes to demonstrate the technology. All of these have been struck from the inventory. Remember the computer technology available in 1986 when they started development of the flight control and mission computers (did you even own a computer back then?) and you have to see the concept was way ahead of it's time.
Next came 4 Engineering Manufacturing and Development birds (a/c 7 thru 10). These were built using "production techniques" and share almost nothing in common with the previous FSD a/c except the general outward appearance. They too were just another stage in development.
Of the EMD a/c, only a/c 8 remains in the military inventory as a developmental test asset.
Then there was the Low Rate Initial Production aircraft 11 thru 33, (AKA pre Block A). Many of these have now been remanufactured as block B aircraft. 5 of these a/c ended up as test aircraft although only two are still flying. A few are in limbo as it's cheaper to just leave them in a hangar than to do anything else with them. To make tracking more difficult, a/c 25 was struck from the MC inventory and converted into a CV test asset and now resides in the AF inventory.
A/C 34 thru 69 were originally block A aircraft although some of these have also been converted into block Bs. The block A birds are all trainers. These were never intended to be combat operational and were not put through the OT required to go to war.
Block B production started with aircraft 70. These are the first combat operational a/c and are still in production. Since some of the LRIP and block A birds are now block Bs, you have to use a spreadsheet to track what's where as you can't just rely on a simple consecutive sequence and assume it's where it should be.
Every quarter a spreadsheet goes out with every B/B production number, the associated tail number (buno), and where it is assigned: whether to a test squadron, a training squadron, a combat squadron or if it has been struck. Aircraft are being received at 2 or 3 a month and squadrons rotate and trade a/c so it's very dynamic. If some general can't keep up with how many are in the inventory on any given day so what? Why should he bother with trivia like that? That's why we have databases.
Then some stupid uninformed columnist can't figure out the numbering system (and why should anyone bother to explain it to him anyway?) and he jumps to a ridiculous conclusion that V-22s are "missing"!! Totally absurd. Now it just so happens that this pulitzer prize piece of journalism perfectly supports your anti V-22 hysteria, so you quote it like it's fact, and insinuate there is evil intent by the MC to hide the truth from America. What total BULL****!!!
You guys are a riot. Perhaps you are here merely to create controversy.
I accept that not everyone will be a V-22 supporter. As a taxpayer you have the right to your opinion of how your money is spent. But you owe it to yourself to make a truly informed decision as you have previously stated. So far the evidence you have presented is lame at best and shows a basic laziness on your part to do your due diligence.
Your perverse conclusions are based on articles with bad/out of date information and a re-hash of baseless dribble. You have no first hand knowledge and yet you refute any favorable reports coming from the troops who actually use it.
Yes I too am biased, and I acknowledge it' not without faults. I've been an engineer on the V-22 since 1989 when it first flew. I've put my heart and soul into this aircraft. I'm proud of what we've built so far. Allow it do it's job for a few years. Then judge it on it's record, not your prejudice.
SASless, Dan and FH101
I've read through many of your posts in this thread, and I don't really know where to begin. Not that it will matter, because you've already made up your minds and cannot be bothered with any facts that don't fit your predetermined world-view.
I can agree that our congress is not capable of any oversight, but that's probably as far as I can go.
Let me start by saying there are no "missing" V-22s, I'm pretty sure there are no aliens in a hangar in Ohio either, but if I find a link to an article that says otherwise, will you take that as gospel also?
Bell/Boeing began counting Ospreys with FSD a/c 1 (first flew in March '89). It was the first of 6 Full Scale Development aircraft. They were hand built prototypes to demonstrate the technology. All of these have been struck from the inventory. Remember the computer technology available in 1986 when they started development of the flight control and mission computers (did you even own a computer back then?) and you have to see the concept was way ahead of it's time.
Next came 4 Engineering Manufacturing and Development birds (a/c 7 thru 10). These were built using "production techniques" and share almost nothing in common with the previous FSD a/c except the general outward appearance. They too were just another stage in development.
Of the EMD a/c, only a/c 8 remains in the military inventory as a developmental test asset.
Then there was the Low Rate Initial Production aircraft 11 thru 33, (AKA pre Block A). Many of these have now been remanufactured as block B aircraft. 5 of these a/c ended up as test aircraft although only two are still flying. A few are in limbo as it's cheaper to just leave them in a hangar than to do anything else with them. To make tracking more difficult, a/c 25 was struck from the MC inventory and converted into a CV test asset and now resides in the AF inventory.
A/C 34 thru 69 were originally block A aircraft although some of these have also been converted into block Bs. The block A birds are all trainers. These were never intended to be combat operational and were not put through the OT required to go to war.
Block B production started with aircraft 70. These are the first combat operational a/c and are still in production. Since some of the LRIP and block A birds are now block Bs, you have to use a spreadsheet to track what's where as you can't just rely on a simple consecutive sequence and assume it's where it should be.
Every quarter a spreadsheet goes out with every B/B production number, the associated tail number (buno), and where it is assigned: whether to a test squadron, a training squadron, a combat squadron or if it has been struck. Aircraft are being received at 2 or 3 a month and squadrons rotate and trade a/c so it's very dynamic. If some general can't keep up with how many are in the inventory on any given day so what? Why should he bother with trivia like that? That's why we have databases.
Then some stupid uninformed columnist can't figure out the numbering system (and why should anyone bother to explain it to him anyway?) and he jumps to a ridiculous conclusion that V-22s are "missing"!! Totally absurd. Now it just so happens that this pulitzer prize piece of journalism perfectly supports your anti V-22 hysteria, so you quote it like it's fact, and insinuate there is evil intent by the MC to hide the truth from America. What total BULL****!!!
You guys are a riot. Perhaps you are here merely to create controversy.
I accept that not everyone will be a V-22 supporter. As a taxpayer you have the right to your opinion of how your money is spent. But you owe it to yourself to make a truly informed decision as you have previously stated. So far the evidence you have presented is lame at best and shows a basic laziness on your part to do your due diligence.
Your perverse conclusions are based on articles with bad/out of date information and a re-hash of baseless dribble. You have no first hand knowledge and yet you refute any favorable reports coming from the troops who actually use it.
Yes I too am biased, and I acknowledge it' not without faults. I've been an engineer on the V-22 since 1989 when it first flew. I've put my heart and soul into this aircraft. I'm proud of what we've built so far. Allow it do it's job for a few years. Then judge it on it's record, not your prejudice.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome aboard "GMACHINE"!
Very few of the folks here are actually connected to the V-22 as you are and so we are just basically messengers to one another. Your info certainly is interesting and I hope you get back to us after having 'discussed' it with the source at G2Mil's website as I'm sure we'd all like to hear his take on this since it got him national attention.
Not to be rude, but most here would consider you as part of the problem with the V-22 since the numbers you claim to have, SHOUT that, and were presented to Congress by the Navy at recent hearings.
I'm sure you take the V-22 seriously but this POS has already taken over top billing as the biggest military fraud ever, even if it should continue to stay funded and then DOUBLE the claims that sold it!
And as a FNG, I suggest you refrain from name-calling since it seriously takes away from your credibility, especially since your well connected to the V-22 and besides, its inmature of you.
Again, Welcome Aboard and PLEASE share any factual knowledge of the V-22 that you may have that contradicts what's been told to Congress. Perhaps we can all make enough $$ from the GAO's Fraud/Waste/Abuse REWARDS Program to be able to keep PPRuNe solvent forever. Whadya think?
Best.
Dan
Very few of the folks here are actually connected to the V-22 as you are and so we are just basically messengers to one another. Your info certainly is interesting and I hope you get back to us after having 'discussed' it with the source at G2Mil's website as I'm sure we'd all like to hear his take on this since it got him national attention.
Not to be rude, but most here would consider you as part of the problem with the V-22 since the numbers you claim to have, SHOUT that, and were presented to Congress by the Navy at recent hearings.
I'm sure you take the V-22 seriously but this POS has already taken over top billing as the biggest military fraud ever, even if it should continue to stay funded and then DOUBLE the claims that sold it!
And as a FNG, I suggest you refrain from name-calling since it seriously takes away from your credibility, especially since your well connected to the V-22 and besides, its inmature of you.
Again, Welcome Aboard and PLEASE share any factual knowledge of the V-22 that you may have that contradicts what's been told to Congress. Perhaps we can all make enough $$ from the GAO's Fraud/Waste/Abuse REWARDS Program to be able to keep PPRuNe solvent forever. Whadya think?
Best.
Dan
Last edited by Dan Reno; 7th Aug 2009 at 12:55.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GMACHINE,
Welcome aboard as well. We probably know each other as I was the senior H-1 TP and A/S department head at Pax in the 90's and was in Wingnut's TPS class (104) who you'll no doubt know.
I appreciate you providing an alternative voice on this, as there are a lot of folks who have based their opinions on media without much substance beyond that. I agree that the aircraft is coming into its own, and knowing some of the folks who fly it in earnest I also agree that the operators are generally positive about its performance.
I had some doubts of my own when I was sitting on test plan review boards for the V-22 (alternate member!), but not about its performance. My primary concerns were (and in some ways still are) around R&M. Improvements have been made in that area however, and it will have to develop more history before that story is finsished.
Anyway, welcome to the discussion and don't let the naysayers get you down. I'm sure there are folks who would throw spitballs at my baby (H-1 Y/Z program). That's why we have horse races.
Welcome aboard as well. We probably know each other as I was the senior H-1 TP and A/S department head at Pax in the 90's and was in Wingnut's TPS class (104) who you'll no doubt know.
I appreciate you providing an alternative voice on this, as there are a lot of folks who have based their opinions on media without much substance beyond that. I agree that the aircraft is coming into its own, and knowing some of the folks who fly it in earnest I also agree that the operators are generally positive about its performance.
I had some doubts of my own when I was sitting on test plan review boards for the V-22 (alternate member!), but not about its performance. My primary concerns were (and in some ways still are) around R&M. Improvements have been made in that area however, and it will have to develop more history before that story is finsished.
Anyway, welcome to the discussion and don't let the naysayers get you down. I'm sure there are folks who would throw spitballs at my baby (H-1 Y/Z program). That's why we have horse races.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: One Mile High
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gmachine,
Thanks for speaking up. Please don't let the one-sidedness of the debate on this issue discourage you from participating. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who lacks the current accurate information to refute the often ridiculous assertions of the V-22's detractors.
While I'm hopeful the aircraft will ultimately be successful, I've not bought into it "hook, line, and sinker," as some might suggest. I'm waiting for it to mature in service before I pass final judgement. It's refreshing to hear another side of the matter.
You may be new to this board and an FNG in Dan's eyes, but if you've been associated with the V-22 since 1989, you're certainly not new to the industry, I'd like to hear more of what you and, particularly, the operators and maintainers have to say.
And for the record, I thought your response was actually quite restrained.
-Stan-
Thanks for speaking up. Please don't let the one-sidedness of the debate on this issue discourage you from participating. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who lacks the current accurate information to refute the often ridiculous assertions of the V-22's detractors.
While I'm hopeful the aircraft will ultimately be successful, I've not bought into it "hook, line, and sinker," as some might suggest. I'm waiting for it to mature in service before I pass final judgement. It's refreshing to hear another side of the matter.
You may be new to this board and an FNG in Dan's eyes, but if you've been associated with the V-22 since 1989, you're certainly not new to the industry, I'd like to hear more of what you and, particularly, the operators and maintainers have to say.
And for the record, I thought your response was actually quite restrained.
-Stan-
Last edited by slgrossman; 7th Aug 2009 at 19:05. Reason: clarification