What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?
Nick and the V-22 Thread
I think most of you are aware that Nick is now a VP at Bell and thus a Company Officer from the legal point of view. My guess is that his present situation prevents him from engaging in comment in a forum like this on a matter of some controversy relating to a current product of his company.
Thanks,
John Dixson
Thanks,
John Dixson
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Sydney, Oz.
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dan,
Regarding the article you posted..
The unprepared sites, conditions and maintenance issues mentioned in the article make it seem less suited to V-22 operations.
I don't see how those 'might' have been avoided.
Regarding the article you posted..
The unprepared sites, conditions and maintenance issues mentioned in the article make it seem less suited to V-22 operations.
I don't see how those 'might' have been avoided.
There is a pretty decent article on the V-22 in the new AOPA PILOT Magazine. (They "scooped" FLYING Magazine!) It's written by the retired airline pilot, Barry Schiff. I began reading with low expectations, him being a fixed-wing type and all, but the article was actually pretty good. Nothing we "insiders" (rotary-wing types, I mean) don't already know but just a nice overview of the aircraft and how it operates. Wait- I take that back, there were a few tidbits I wasn't aware of.
The article has some nice photos, too - some from Bell, some from staff photographer Mike Fizer, who evidently went along with Schiff to Kirtland AFB, as Ned did too. The USAF must have been doing some deal with the press, letting photographers and pilot/reporters get to know the V-22 up close and personal, and fly not only the sim but the actual aircraft. Pretty pictures are great, but nothing beats a good first-person pilot report. Great PR for the V-22.
I wonder why the Marines haven't done that?
The article has some nice photos, too - some from Bell, some from staff photographer Mike Fizer, who evidently went along with Schiff to Kirtland AFB, as Ned did too. The USAF must have been doing some deal with the press, letting photographers and pilot/reporters get to know the V-22 up close and personal, and fly not only the sim but the actual aircraft. Pretty pictures are great, but nothing beats a good first-person pilot report. Great PR for the V-22.
I wonder why the Marines haven't done that?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: All The Places I Shouldnt Be
Posts: 1,009
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob,
Just to give you a heads up on how the AOPA feature came about and no he didnt fly the CV22.
We had started the ball rolling some time ago with higher ups at USAF HQ to go and visit the unit, after a suggestion from a friend of mine who is also a pilot at the squadron, and no its not McPave (although he and SB are friends) after he transferred there from Pavelows.
Once we had got all the approvals done the PAO folks at the base asked us if we would mind if they combined our visit, since we were doing air to air pics, with some folks from aopa who wanted to come and look at the CV22, sort of making the most of the one training sortie - the unit is VERY busy when it comes to training so obviously if we could kill two birds with one stone then why not.
It wasnt an issue with us so along they came and we all spent the day alternating between the sim and the squadron so we didnt overlap, apart from the flying part. When I was in the sim with McPave they were with Capt Millet and then vice versa. On the day of the flight we were all in one a/c and I spent most of the time sitting on the back ramp shooting the other a/c while Barry was sitting on the jumpseat between the two crew. Then for the last ten or so mins of the flight I sat there and shot some pics.
Overall it was a great day and gave us an insight into the program that not many have seen. We are now working with the folks at Hurlburt to go and see the next phase of training once the guys head back to the squadrons.
And his pilot report as you put it was only gained from flying the sim and sitting in the jump seat, same as myself, no one apart from CV22 rates guys are allowed in the front seat. Believe me if we were I would have insisted
Anyway thats the heads up for you, hope it clarifies things.
Ned
Just to give you a heads up on how the AOPA feature came about and no he didnt fly the CV22.
We had started the ball rolling some time ago with higher ups at USAF HQ to go and visit the unit, after a suggestion from a friend of mine who is also a pilot at the squadron, and no its not McPave (although he and SB are friends) after he transferred there from Pavelows.
Once we had got all the approvals done the PAO folks at the base asked us if we would mind if they combined our visit, since we were doing air to air pics, with some folks from aopa who wanted to come and look at the CV22, sort of making the most of the one training sortie - the unit is VERY busy when it comes to training so obviously if we could kill two birds with one stone then why not.
It wasnt an issue with us so along they came and we all spent the day alternating between the sim and the squadron so we didnt overlap, apart from the flying part. When I was in the sim with McPave they were with Capt Millet and then vice versa. On the day of the flight we were all in one a/c and I spent most of the time sitting on the back ramp shooting the other a/c while Barry was sitting on the jumpseat between the two crew. Then for the last ten or so mins of the flight I sat there and shot some pics.
Overall it was a great day and gave us an insight into the program that not many have seen. We are now working with the folks at Hurlburt to go and see the next phase of training once the guys head back to the squadrons.
And his pilot report as you put it was only gained from flying the sim and sitting in the jump seat, same as myself, no one apart from CV22 rates guys are allowed in the front seat. Believe me if we were I would have insisted
Anyway thats the heads up for you, hope it clarifies things.
Ned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geezer apologizes for V-22 but not Prez !
A college student at a recent football game challenged a senior citizen
sitting next to him, saying it was impossible for their generation to
understand his.
"You grew up in a different world," the student said ... loud enough
for the whole crowd to hear.
"Today we have television, jet planes, space travel, man has walked on
the moon, our spaceships have visited Mars, we even have nuclear
energy, electric and hydrogen cars, the Osprey, computers with light-speed
processing, and, uh ..."
Taking advantage of a pause in the student's litany, the geezer said:
"You're right. I’ll apologize for the Osprey but we didn't have those other things
when we were young; so we invented them, you little ****! Now what the hell
are you doing for the next generation besides getting idiots for president elected?"
sitting next to him, saying it was impossible for their generation to
understand his.
"You grew up in a different world," the student said ... loud enough
for the whole crowd to hear.
"Today we have television, jet planes, space travel, man has walked on
the moon, our spaceships have visited Mars, we even have nuclear
energy, electric and hydrogen cars, the Osprey, computers with light-speed
processing, and, uh ..."
Taking advantage of a pause in the student's litany, the geezer said:
"You're right. I’ll apologize for the Osprey but we didn't have those other things
when we were young; so we invented them, you little ****! Now what the hell
are you doing for the next generation besides getting idiots for president elected?"
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21stCentury
I seen it without the 'Osprey' years back and just got it from a retired Marine working throuigh NADEP at NR on CH-53E refurb with the 'Osprey' in it. He says he got it from an E-something at the Osprey squadron.
I seen it without the 'Osprey' years back and just got it from a retired Marine working throuigh NADEP at NR on CH-53E refurb with the 'Osprey' in it. He says he got it from an E-something at the Osprey squadron.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Dan,
I had seen that one some time back also, and it made sense then as the reference was quite humorous. I just can't remember the 'punch line' that made it good. If you can remember the part that made it funny, please remind us.
thanks...
I had seen that one some time back also, and it made sense then as the reference was quite humorous. I just can't remember the 'punch line' that made it good. If you can remember the part that made it funny, please remind us.
thanks...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It should read like this (?):
A college student at a recent football game challenged a senior citizen
sitting next to him, saying it was impossible for their generation to
understand his.
"You grew up in a different world," the student said ... loud enough
for the whole crowd to hear.
"Today we have television, jet planes, space travel, man has walked on
the moon, our spaceships have visited Mars, we even have nuclear
energy, electric and hydrogen cars, computers with light-speed
processing, and, uh ..."
Taking advantage of a pause in the student's litany, the geezer said:
"You're right, we didn't have those other things
when we were young so we invented them you little ****!
A college student at a recent football game challenged a senior citizen
sitting next to him, saying it was impossible for their generation to
understand his.
"You grew up in a different world," the student said ... loud enough
for the whole crowd to hear.
"Today we have television, jet planes, space travel, man has walked on
the moon, our spaceships have visited Mars, we even have nuclear
energy, electric and hydrogen cars, computers with light-speed
processing, and, uh ..."
Taking advantage of a pause in the student's litany, the geezer said:
"You're right, we didn't have those other things
when we were young so we invented them you little ****!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Osprey gears up for deployment
November 03, 2009 1:16 AM
HOPE HODGE
With October named the deadliest month of the year for troops after two unrelated helicopter crashes resulted in the deaths of 14 Americans last week, the military is sending a new kind of aircraft into Afghanistan.
Earlier in October, Department of Defense officials announced Marine Medium Tiltrotor 261, based at New River Air Station, would be the first MV-22 Osprey squadron to deploy to Afghanistan sometime in November.
New River is home to all four operational Osprey squadrons, with two more expected to become operational over the next year or so. One squadron, VMM-263, was near Alexandria, Egypt, with the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit, working on amphibious assault demonstrations with the U.S.S. Bataan earlier this month.
A spokesman with Marine Corps Forces Command, Lt. Col. Matt Morgan, said that the VMM-261 also known as “The Raging Bulls,” had become fully operational Oct. 1, after transitioning to the Osprey from the CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters in early 2008.
Gen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, has called the Osprey, with its agility and speed, an aircraft that’s “made for Afghanistan.” Its unique tiltrotors allow it to lift off vertically like a helicopter but fly like an airplane.
The Osprey “can fly faster, farther than any rotary wing aircraft,” Morgan said.
Its versatile construction also means the Osprey operates well in austere environments such as the deserts of Afghanistan, where landing strips and support structures might be scarce.
“We are able to operate in places where there is not otherwise a robust infrastructure,” Morgan said. “The Osprey was designed from the ground up to be able to operate in that.”
This will assist in performing operations such as casualty evacuations, he said.
The squadron will consist of 10 to 12 aircraft, accompanied by about 200 Marines, according to the DoD.
Richard Whittle, an independent author and journalist from Chevy Chase, Md., whose book “The Dream Machine: The Untold History of the Notorious V-22Osprey,” will be published in April, said the Osprey has another advantage over helicopters: The higher altitudes at which it tends to fly can put it beyond the range of ground fire. Helicopters tend to fly low, using the element of surprise as a defense.
“Riding in the Osprey in Afghanistan may be safer than riding in a helicopter,” he said.
Whittle flew with a New River-based Osprey squadron in Iraq while working on his book in 2007 and said the cruising altitude averaged about 8,000 feet.
“That gets you well above the threat of small arms and rocket-propelled grenades,” he said.
Some concerns that persist about the Osprey’s first venture into Afghanistan pertain to its ability to operate in the higher altitudes, 6,500 feet or more above sea level across most of the country, as a rotor aircraft. And after recent successful deployments to Iraq, the Osprey may now be tested in an environment with a greater amount of combat situations and harsher conditions.
“The idea of having an aircraft that can take off vertically and fly fast has been a holy grail in the history of aviation,” Whittle said.
November 03, 2009 1:16 AM
HOPE HODGE
With October named the deadliest month of the year for troops after two unrelated helicopter crashes resulted in the deaths of 14 Americans last week, the military is sending a new kind of aircraft into Afghanistan.
Earlier in October, Department of Defense officials announced Marine Medium Tiltrotor 261, based at New River Air Station, would be the first MV-22 Osprey squadron to deploy to Afghanistan sometime in November.
New River is home to all four operational Osprey squadrons, with two more expected to become operational over the next year or so. One squadron, VMM-263, was near Alexandria, Egypt, with the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit, working on amphibious assault demonstrations with the U.S.S. Bataan earlier this month.
A spokesman with Marine Corps Forces Command, Lt. Col. Matt Morgan, said that the VMM-261 also known as “The Raging Bulls,” had become fully operational Oct. 1, after transitioning to the Osprey from the CH-46 Sea Knight helicopters in early 2008.
Gen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, has called the Osprey, with its agility and speed, an aircraft that’s “made for Afghanistan.” Its unique tiltrotors allow it to lift off vertically like a helicopter but fly like an airplane.
The Osprey “can fly faster, farther than any rotary wing aircraft,” Morgan said.
Its versatile construction also means the Osprey operates well in austere environments such as the deserts of Afghanistan, where landing strips and support structures might be scarce.
“We are able to operate in places where there is not otherwise a robust infrastructure,” Morgan said. “The Osprey was designed from the ground up to be able to operate in that.”
This will assist in performing operations such as casualty evacuations, he said.
The squadron will consist of 10 to 12 aircraft, accompanied by about 200 Marines, according to the DoD.
Richard Whittle, an independent author and journalist from Chevy Chase, Md., whose book “The Dream Machine: The Untold History of the Notorious V-22Osprey,” will be published in April, said the Osprey has another advantage over helicopters: The higher altitudes at which it tends to fly can put it beyond the range of ground fire. Helicopters tend to fly low, using the element of surprise as a defense.
“Riding in the Osprey in Afghanistan may be safer than riding in a helicopter,” he said.
Whittle flew with a New River-based Osprey squadron in Iraq while working on his book in 2007 and said the cruising altitude averaged about 8,000 feet.
“That gets you well above the threat of small arms and rocket-propelled grenades,” he said.
Some concerns that persist about the Osprey’s first venture into Afghanistan pertain to its ability to operate in the higher altitudes, 6,500 feet or more above sea level across most of the country, as a rotor aircraft. And after recent successful deployments to Iraq, the Osprey may now be tested in an environment with a greater amount of combat situations and harsher conditions.
“The idea of having an aircraft that can take off vertically and fly fast has been a holy grail in the history of aviation,” Whittle said.
So this guy Whittle is working on a book about the Osprey, eh? The untold history, eh? That ought to be good. Can't wait!
Eight-thousand feet? Hmm. I've taken my "lowly" 206B up to 9,500 to take advantage of good tailwinds. I wonder how high you have to be to get out of range of "small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades?" Can an H-53 even go that high?
The other day, I had put my helicopter away after a flight and was driving home. I got to thinking about the V-22. Not the V-22 of today, but the V-22 of twenty years from now. I'm not a moron, I'm not crazy, and I'm not on drugs. But I've been a helicopter pilot all my life, and know a thing or two about how rotors work. And among a very few others, I've been a big critic of the tilt-rotor. So I got to wondering what will happen? Will the Osprey turn out to be a huge success, or a big failure? Will I look like more of a complete idiot than I do now? Or will I have the chance to say, "I knew it." I think I know the answer to that...but I've been wrong about stuff before.
I personally believe the tilt-rotor design has many flaws, some of which that make the V-22 an unsuitable aircraft - even more incompletely invented (to paraphrase newsman Andy Rooney) than the helicopter. But others think it is just the neatest thing since sliced bread. Maybe they're seeing something I'm not. Time will tell, of course.
We know that, despite all of the hoopla to the contrary, Afghanistan is *not* the ideal place for the Osprey. I'm sure there are plenty of generals in the Pentagon who are holding their breath and crossing their fingers right now, hoping nothing goes wrong. One bad accident could put the program in even more jeopardy. I've had private emails from military pilots who've told me that the Osprey was used *very* selectively in Iraq, and was deliberately kept from high-threat areas or missions. So it's not exactly a "battle-tested" design, let's be honest.
I'll be curious to read Whittle's "untold history" of the V-22, especially since it is not completely written yet. Maybe that's why the publication date is so far off. Afghanistan could very well be do-or-die for the Osprey.
“Riding in the Osprey in Afghanistan may be safer than riding in a helicopter,” he said.
Whittle flew with a New River-based Osprey squadron in Iraq while working on his book in 2007 and said the cruising altitude averaged about 8,000 feet.
“That gets you well above the threat of small arms and rocket-propelled grenades,” he said.
Whittle flew with a New River-based Osprey squadron in Iraq while working on his book in 2007 and said the cruising altitude averaged about 8,000 feet.
“That gets you well above the threat of small arms and rocket-propelled grenades,” he said.
The other day, I had put my helicopter away after a flight and was driving home. I got to thinking about the V-22. Not the V-22 of today, but the V-22 of twenty years from now. I'm not a moron, I'm not crazy, and I'm not on drugs. But I've been a helicopter pilot all my life, and know a thing or two about how rotors work. And among a very few others, I've been a big critic of the tilt-rotor. So I got to wondering what will happen? Will the Osprey turn out to be a huge success, or a big failure? Will I look like more of a complete idiot than I do now? Or will I have the chance to say, "I knew it." I think I know the answer to that...but I've been wrong about stuff before.
I personally believe the tilt-rotor design has many flaws, some of which that make the V-22 an unsuitable aircraft - even more incompletely invented (to paraphrase newsman Andy Rooney) than the helicopter. But others think it is just the neatest thing since sliced bread. Maybe they're seeing something I'm not. Time will tell, of course.
We know that, despite all of the hoopla to the contrary, Afghanistan is *not* the ideal place for the Osprey. I'm sure there are plenty of generals in the Pentagon who are holding their breath and crossing their fingers right now, hoping nothing goes wrong. One bad accident could put the program in even more jeopardy. I've had private emails from military pilots who've told me that the Osprey was used *very* selectively in Iraq, and was deliberately kept from high-threat areas or missions. So it's not exactly a "battle-tested" design, let's be honest.
I'll be curious to read Whittle's "untold history" of the V-22, especially since it is not completely written yet. Maybe that's why the publication date is so far off. Afghanistan could very well be do-or-die for the Osprey.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
USS New York Honors Those Lost on 9/11 with V-22 & CH-53 Onboard
The USS New York whose structure includes 7.5 tons of steel salvaged from the World Trade Center site visited Ground Zero to Honor those lost on 9/11.
YouTube - USS New York WTC Steel Built Ship - Close up view
On a particularly gray day, the type of gray only achievable in New York City, the USS New York arrived in grand style, made a brief appearance in Lower Manhattan to offer a twenty one gun salute in honor of the fallen on 9-11, then glided easily upstream to come about near the George Washington Bridge, and then slide into a berth at Pier 88 just across from the Intrepid Air, Sea, Space museum. The City's NYC.gov page warned lower-Manhattanites that there would be repetitive loud sounds and not to be alarmed. The ship's construction is a tribute to modern Naval architecture and technology, in terms of amphibious tactical vehicles, it boasts a wide range of impressive structural cues, as well as armaments that make it a formidable opponent. It's maiden voyage in the nautical footsteps of Henry Hudson is also significant for the fact that a section of its nearly 700 foot length is forged partly from 7.5 tons of steel salvaged from the World Trade Center site.
In an unprecedented show of hospitality, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg was welcomed aboard to watch the Yankees trounce the Phillies again last night. Further festivities this morning included an honor guard including pipers and drums from the NYPD, and members from the NY Guard, NY National Guard, and several other branches that all had first responders that rushed to the WTC disaster. Mayor Bloomberg officially welcomed the crew and commanders to NYC this morning after the ship docked.
Veterans and civilians alike showed up en masse to view and take photos of the Navy's newest addition. Police presence and security was tight, with armed guards at the gates preventing anyone from getting in. On the greenway bike path however, it was clear that a stream of Vietnam era and younger veterans - proudly displaying caps with their theater and ship - were on their way to view the New York.
The ship is capable of carrying a buffet of operational delights, including (but not limited to) MV-22 Ospreys, AH1 SuperCobras, CH-46E Sea Knights, and CH-53 Super Stallion helicopters, along with men and supplies. The aerial vehicles are accompanied by spaces below decks for Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles, and other amphibious assault craft. The sight of the ship is truly one to behold as an advance in the military technology of today: what appear to be smoke stacks are in fact arrays of sensors, with a separate helicopter control deck in the aft portion.
YouTube - USS New York WTC Steel Built Ship - Close up view
On a particularly gray day, the type of gray only achievable in New York City, the USS New York arrived in grand style, made a brief appearance in Lower Manhattan to offer a twenty one gun salute in honor of the fallen on 9-11, then glided easily upstream to come about near the George Washington Bridge, and then slide into a berth at Pier 88 just across from the Intrepid Air, Sea, Space museum. The City's NYC.gov page warned lower-Manhattanites that there would be repetitive loud sounds and not to be alarmed. The ship's construction is a tribute to modern Naval architecture and technology, in terms of amphibious tactical vehicles, it boasts a wide range of impressive structural cues, as well as armaments that make it a formidable opponent. It's maiden voyage in the nautical footsteps of Henry Hudson is also significant for the fact that a section of its nearly 700 foot length is forged partly from 7.5 tons of steel salvaged from the World Trade Center site.
In an unprecedented show of hospitality, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg was welcomed aboard to watch the Yankees trounce the Phillies again last night. Further festivities this morning included an honor guard including pipers and drums from the NYPD, and members from the NY Guard, NY National Guard, and several other branches that all had first responders that rushed to the WTC disaster. Mayor Bloomberg officially welcomed the crew and commanders to NYC this morning after the ship docked.
Veterans and civilians alike showed up en masse to view and take photos of the Navy's newest addition. Police presence and security was tight, with armed guards at the gates preventing anyone from getting in. On the greenway bike path however, it was clear that a stream of Vietnam era and younger veterans - proudly displaying caps with their theater and ship - were on their way to view the New York.
The ship is capable of carrying a buffet of operational delights, including (but not limited to) MV-22 Ospreys, AH1 SuperCobras, CH-46E Sea Knights, and CH-53 Super Stallion helicopters, along with men and supplies. The aerial vehicles are accompanied by spaces below decks for Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles, and other amphibious assault craft. The sight of the ship is truly one to behold as an advance in the military technology of today: what appear to be smoke stacks are in fact arrays of sensors, with a separate helicopter control deck in the aft portion.
Out of range of RPG's???
So much for landing at other than secure airfields then!
So much for landing at other than secure airfields then!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too little too late or too much ?
Some Sense on Defense Spending
Presidents, and those aspiring to be presidents, routinely promise to reform the defense procurement process. And defense contractors, their lobbyists and the military services routinely ensure that never happens.
This year has been refreshingly different. President Obama and his defense secretary, Robert Gates, have made a compelling case for ending weapons programs that significantly exceed their budgets or use limited tax dollars to buy more capability than the nation needs. And Congress has agreed — somewhat.
The $680 billion defense authorization bill signed into law by President Obama last week pares back or cancels billions of dollars in expensive weapons systems that are either anachronistic, redundant, poorly performing or exceed the military’s real requirements. Even with these reductions, the defense bill is one of the biggest in history, in part because of the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it sets an important base line for future cuts that need to be far more ambitious.
The new law ends production of the C-17 transport plane (military planners say they have enough to meet current and future needs) and cancels the airborne laser (a favorite of missile defense dreamers) as well as the heart of the Army’s Future Combat System (an overly high-tech approach to war-fighting that was overbudget and ill suited to fighting today’s counterinsurgencies).
The biggest political win was ending production of the Air Force’s F-22 stealth fighter jet after 187 aircraft. Several previous presidents, including President George W. Bush, tried and failed to end the program. The decision by Lockheed Martin and its partners to put plants and other facilities in dozens of states ensured that it had a lot of powerful friends on Capitol Hill.
This time, strategic reality finally trumped high-priced lobbyists. The F-22 was designed for combat against the former Soviet Union and has not been used in Iraq or Afghanistan. The Air Force’s new high-performance F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a Lockheed Martin weapon that begins production in 2012, should be sufficient.
Mr. Obama did not get everything he wanted. Congress defied a veto threat and insisted on authorizing $560 million for research and procurement of an alternate engine for the F-35 that the Pentagon says is unnecessary. Lawmakers authorized an extra $1.8 billion to buy 18 F-18 fighter jets — twice as many as the administration sought.
President Obama and Mr. Gates are going to have to work hard to make sure that their hard-won victories stay won. The House and Senate are negotiating a defense spending bill that experts predict will include money for the C-17 transport plane. They should also continue to press lawmakers not to finance the alternate F-35 engine.
And they are going to have to be even bolder next year: pressing Congress to halt production of the V-22 Osprey and the Virginia class submarine and make deeper trims in the still unproven missile defense program.
The administration has also begun to make progress toward changing the defense procurement culture. Mr. Obama has wisely ended no-bid contracts and signed bipartisan legislation to improve how weapons are bought. It will take political courage and persistence to keep all those reforms going especially next year when many members of Congress are up for re-election.
Presidents, and those aspiring to be presidents, routinely promise to reform the defense procurement process. And defense contractors, their lobbyists and the military services routinely ensure that never happens.
This year has been refreshingly different. President Obama and his defense secretary, Robert Gates, have made a compelling case for ending weapons programs that significantly exceed their budgets or use limited tax dollars to buy more capability than the nation needs. And Congress has agreed — somewhat.
The $680 billion defense authorization bill signed into law by President Obama last week pares back or cancels billions of dollars in expensive weapons systems that are either anachronistic, redundant, poorly performing or exceed the military’s real requirements. Even with these reductions, the defense bill is one of the biggest in history, in part because of the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it sets an important base line for future cuts that need to be far more ambitious.
The new law ends production of the C-17 transport plane (military planners say they have enough to meet current and future needs) and cancels the airborne laser (a favorite of missile defense dreamers) as well as the heart of the Army’s Future Combat System (an overly high-tech approach to war-fighting that was overbudget and ill suited to fighting today’s counterinsurgencies).
The biggest political win was ending production of the Air Force’s F-22 stealth fighter jet after 187 aircraft. Several previous presidents, including President George W. Bush, tried and failed to end the program. The decision by Lockheed Martin and its partners to put plants and other facilities in dozens of states ensured that it had a lot of powerful friends on Capitol Hill.
This time, strategic reality finally trumped high-priced lobbyists. The F-22 was designed for combat against the former Soviet Union and has not been used in Iraq or Afghanistan. The Air Force’s new high-performance F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a Lockheed Martin weapon that begins production in 2012, should be sufficient.
Mr. Obama did not get everything he wanted. Congress defied a veto threat and insisted on authorizing $560 million for research and procurement of an alternate engine for the F-35 that the Pentagon says is unnecessary. Lawmakers authorized an extra $1.8 billion to buy 18 F-18 fighter jets — twice as many as the administration sought.
President Obama and Mr. Gates are going to have to work hard to make sure that their hard-won victories stay won. The House and Senate are negotiating a defense spending bill that experts predict will include money for the C-17 transport plane. They should also continue to press lawmakers not to finance the alternate F-35 engine.
And they are going to have to be even bolder next year: pressing Congress to halt production of the V-22 Osprey and the Virginia class submarine and make deeper trims in the still unproven missile defense program.
The administration has also begun to make progress toward changing the defense procurement culture. Mr. Obama has wisely ended no-bid contracts and signed bipartisan legislation to improve how weapons are bought. It will take political courage and persistence to keep all those reforms going especially next year when many members of Congress are up for re-election.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps NYT does know what it's talking about after all !
New York Times Suddenly Defense Procurement Experts
After advocating massive influxes of taxpayer money into blackholes like stimulus, bailouts for failed corporations, and universal health care, the New York Times editorial board is suddenly on a big fiscal responsibility kick:
The fact is, the Times editorial board has little idea of how much defensive capability we need, as they've never been a credible or knowledgeable exponent of national security matters. In one breath they argue that cutting the F-22 was justified because the plane hasn't seen combat in Iraq or Afghanistan, in the next, they can barely contain their giddiness at the prospect of killing the V-22 Osprey, a valuable tilt-rotor aircraft that has been absolutely indispensable to quick-reaction Marine forces in both theaters of war. They say that military planners don't want more C-17 cargo jets, a mere month after Air Force officials laid out a very clear and convincing case for additional military airlift resources to support landlocked Afghanistan. They even go so far as to bring out the big guns, plucking lines directly from Obama's stump speeches in their support of killing "unproven" missile defense technologies.
This isn't a serious editorial. It's a dogmatic reiteration of the President's damaging proposals to drastically cut the military. Taking strategic cues from the New York Times would be like General Petraeus giving the Old Grey Lady journalistic advice . . . with the caveat that Petraeus is actually good at his craft.
After advocating massive influxes of taxpayer money into blackholes like stimulus, bailouts for failed corporations, and universal health care, the New York Times editorial board is suddenly on a big fiscal responsibility kick:
Presidents, and those aspiring to be presidents, routinely promise to reform the defense procurement process. And defense contractors, their lobbyists and the military services routinely ensure that never happens.
This year has been refreshingly different. President Obama and his defense secretary, Robert Gates, have made a compelling case for ending weapons programs that significantly exceed their budgets or use limited tax dollars to buy more capability than the nation needs.
Russia simulates nuclear attacks against a key NATO ally, China declares their intention to weaponize space, Iran holds massive rallies outside the US embassy threatening to annihilate the Great Satan, North Korea announces that they'll be constructing more nuclear bombs, while the Taliban continue to make strong gains in rural Afghanistan. "More capability than the nation needs" indeed. The fact is, the Times editorial board has little idea of how much defensive capability we need, as they've never been a credible or knowledgeable exponent of national security matters. In one breath they argue that cutting the F-22 was justified because the plane hasn't seen combat in Iraq or Afghanistan, in the next, they can barely contain their giddiness at the prospect of killing the V-22 Osprey, a valuable tilt-rotor aircraft that has been absolutely indispensable to quick-reaction Marine forces in both theaters of war. They say that military planners don't want more C-17 cargo jets, a mere month after Air Force officials laid out a very clear and convincing case for additional military airlift resources to support landlocked Afghanistan. They even go so far as to bring out the big guns, plucking lines directly from Obama's stump speeches in their support of killing "unproven" missile defense technologies.
This isn't a serious editorial. It's a dogmatic reiteration of the President's damaging proposals to drastically cut the military. Taking strategic cues from the New York Times would be like General Petraeus giving the Old Grey Lady journalistic advice . . . with the caveat that Petraeus is actually good at his craft.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V-22s Arrive in Afghanistan (With video)
Aviation Week Ares Blog ^| 11/6/2009 | Bettina Chavanne
Posted on Friday, November 06, 2009 5:03:39 PM by Yo-Yo
The U.S. Marine Corps today released video of its V-22 Ospreys arriving in Afghanistan. Ten MV-22s flew from the USS Bataan and are now operating in southern Afghanistan.
The video is of MV-22Bs with the Marine Medium tiltrotor Squadron 263, 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit taking off in three waves from the flight deck of the Bataan.
And here is video of the arrival and flight of the first Osprey to be use in Afghanistan.
Video: http://www.dvidshub.net/units/2MEB
Aviation Week Ares Blog ^| 11/6/2009 | Bettina Chavanne
Posted on Friday, November 06, 2009 5:03:39 PM by Yo-Yo
The U.S. Marine Corps today released video of its V-22 Ospreys arriving in Afghanistan. Ten MV-22s flew from the USS Bataan and are now operating in southern Afghanistan.
The video is of MV-22Bs with the Marine Medium tiltrotor Squadron 263, 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit taking off in three waves from the flight deck of the Bataan.
And here is video of the arrival and flight of the first Osprey to be use in Afghanistan.
Video: http://www.dvidshub.net/units/2MEB