What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?
San Diego Parade of Flight
Very vertical lift air display. Ospreys and helo's around 17 minutes.
The SultanYouTube - Centennial of Naval Aviation Parade of flight feat. 130+ aircraft
The SultanYouTube - Centennial of Naval Aviation Parade of flight feat. 130+ aircraft
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FH1100,
I read your interpretation of FAR regarding load factor, and have to pipe in. The load factor maneuver capability of virtually all civil helos is far, far less than the FAR requires, because the rotor and controls simply cannot get either that much positive or negative G. I know of only one helo that can do the +3.5 to -1.0, and that is a light Black Hawk.
Having signed the flight strain surveys and structural demos for a few helos, I can assure you that no helo you have flown meets those numbers, esp when at commercial gross weights.
The "extremely remote" statement is used because if the aircraft can't be made to go to that G, exceedence is by definition extremely remote.
Regarding the V22 accident under discussion, I am not privy to any accident data, but a quick glance at the accident puts it in the category of perhaps 60 helicopter accidents that occurred in low speed operations in the desert environment, much the fault of the environment and cockpits we build than the configuration.
I perhaps understand the V22 as much as anyone, from a maneuver/limitations/control standpoint, and I listen to the guys who fly the machine when I want to know if it is fit for service. Frankly, I was as tough on it as anyone while it was under development. But when the folks who are doing the missions speak as glowingly as they do, after hundreds of hours doing the real job, even I have to listen.
BTW, note that the next gen vertical lift for the US Military will have payload, speed and range criteria that are what the V22 was asked to do (and does) 2 decades ago by the USMC. This seems to say that the USMC vision has been vindicated by all the services. If you don't like high speed, long range vertical lift, the next few decades will be a miserable time for you!
I read your interpretation of FAR regarding load factor, and have to pipe in. The load factor maneuver capability of virtually all civil helos is far, far less than the FAR requires, because the rotor and controls simply cannot get either that much positive or negative G. I know of only one helo that can do the +3.5 to -1.0, and that is a light Black Hawk.
Having signed the flight strain surveys and structural demos for a few helos, I can assure you that no helo you have flown meets those numbers, esp when at commercial gross weights.
The "extremely remote" statement is used because if the aircraft can't be made to go to that G, exceedence is by definition extremely remote.
Regarding the V22 accident under discussion, I am not privy to any accident data, but a quick glance at the accident puts it in the category of perhaps 60 helicopter accidents that occurred in low speed operations in the desert environment, much the fault of the environment and cockpits we build than the configuration.
I perhaps understand the V22 as much as anyone, from a maneuver/limitations/control standpoint, and I listen to the guys who fly the machine when I want to know if it is fit for service. Frankly, I was as tough on it as anyone while it was under development. But when the folks who are doing the missions speak as glowingly as they do, after hundreds of hours doing the real job, even I have to listen.
BTW, note that the next gen vertical lift for the US Military will have payload, speed and range criteria that are what the V22 was asked to do (and does) 2 decades ago by the USMC. This seems to say that the USMC vision has been vindicated by all the services. If you don't like high speed, long range vertical lift, the next few decades will be a miserable time for you!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rjtjrt,
My concerns were always the relative efficiency and cost as compared to a helo. I also objected to the "twice as far, twice as fast, twice the payload" of a helicopter, which was and is pure marketing bunk. I believe my previous observations were correct, and stand the test of time. What I did not appreciate is how the users would value the usable range (speed and time) to change the tactical environment.
In those older posts, many times I also said (against a swell of opinion otherwise) that the V22 would be made safe and would meet a tough US Navy qualification, and that the users will make the ultimate determination. In interviews I have read, and in talking to users personally, the users have expressed their opinion. The users have embraced the speed as its own reward, and the way speed makes usable range (how far can you fly in 3 hours, for example). There is work ahead for the Osprey, to improve its maintenance and its availability, but the same folks who choose to go to battle in it are the ones we must back now.
Lately I have worked with DoD pilots and experts who are writing the next gen requirements, and they are believers, too. Have I changed my opinion? Yep, because our customers have told me what they want, and it is wise to provide what folks want to buy and use!
My concerns were always the relative efficiency and cost as compared to a helo. I also objected to the "twice as far, twice as fast, twice the payload" of a helicopter, which was and is pure marketing bunk. I believe my previous observations were correct, and stand the test of time. What I did not appreciate is how the users would value the usable range (speed and time) to change the tactical environment.
In those older posts, many times I also said (against a swell of opinion otherwise) that the V22 would be made safe and would meet a tough US Navy qualification, and that the users will make the ultimate determination. In interviews I have read, and in talking to users personally, the users have expressed their opinion. The users have embraced the speed as its own reward, and the way speed makes usable range (how far can you fly in 3 hours, for example). There is work ahead for the Osprey, to improve its maintenance and its availability, but the same folks who choose to go to battle in it are the ones we must back now.
Lately I have worked with DoD pilots and experts who are writing the next gen requirements, and they are believers, too. Have I changed my opinion? Yep, because our customers have told me what they want, and it is wise to provide what folks want to buy and use!
Nick ol' bean.....
As you have been in such intimate contact with those who are setting the standards for new technology and aircraft needed for the future....hows about answering a question or two please.
The much vaunted and very damn expensive Expeditionary Fighting Vehichle Program (EFV) has been terminated. As we all know, the USMC had to embrace a concept known as Over The Horizion Littoral Assault (OTH), because the USN has refused to approach closer than 25NM to hostile shores out of a need to protect their ships from cruise and anti-ship missles.
The OTH Strategy depends upon three pieces of equipment, the EFV (now Cancelled), the Osprey, and the LCAC. At least that is what the Marine Corps has used as a selling point for the EFV and Osprey Programs.
The LCAC (huge damn hover craft) is not usable as an Assault platform and is limited to logistics support to a secure beach head.
That leaves the Osprey to carry out OTH assaults.
We all know according to our Leatherneck friends that "tactics have changed from Vietnam Days" and Ospreys do not land in hostile landing zones (those under direct fire or known indirect fire and carry minimal defensive weaponry. You noted the lack of defensive armament yourself in the past.
So...what are your Marine colleagues saying about this situation re OTH now that the EFV has been scuttled? How does the Marine Corps accomplish their key mission of being the only service capable of Amphibious Assault to include their core strategy of OTH Littoral Assault?
They ain't got the EFV to do it?
Current Amtrac's are too slow and range limited.
There is not even a new EFV on the drawing board.
What kind Bell give them that will replace the short fall.....Huey's and a reversion to Vietnam Tactics of landing in amongst the Bad Guy's?
As you have been in such intimate contact with those who are setting the standards for new technology and aircraft needed for the future....hows about answering a question or two please.
The much vaunted and very damn expensive Expeditionary Fighting Vehichle Program (EFV) has been terminated. As we all know, the USMC had to embrace a concept known as Over The Horizion Littoral Assault (OTH), because the USN has refused to approach closer than 25NM to hostile shores out of a need to protect their ships from cruise and anti-ship missles.
The OTH Strategy depends upon three pieces of equipment, the EFV (now Cancelled), the Osprey, and the LCAC. At least that is what the Marine Corps has used as a selling point for the EFV and Osprey Programs.
The LCAC (huge damn hover craft) is not usable as an Assault platform and is limited to logistics support to a secure beach head.
That leaves the Osprey to carry out OTH assaults.
We all know according to our Leatherneck friends that "tactics have changed from Vietnam Days" and Ospreys do not land in hostile landing zones (those under direct fire or known indirect fire and carry minimal defensive weaponry. You noted the lack of defensive armament yourself in the past.
So...what are your Marine colleagues saying about this situation re OTH now that the EFV has been scuttled? How does the Marine Corps accomplish their key mission of being the only service capable of Amphibious Assault to include their core strategy of OTH Littoral Assault?
They ain't got the EFV to do it?
Current Amtrac's are too slow and range limited.
There is not even a new EFV on the drawing board.
What kind Bell give them that will replace the short fall.....Huey's and a reversion to Vietnam Tactics of landing in amongst the Bad Guy's?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V-22 Is The Safest, Most Survivable Rotorcraft The Marines Have
V-22 Is The Safest, Most Survivable Rotorcraft The Marines Have 19:53 GMT, February 16, 2011 Here's a surprise: the V-22 Osprey has turned into the safest, most survivable rotorcraft the U.S. Marine Corps operates. The Osprey had its first fatal accident in ten years last April during a combat mission in Afghanistan, when an Air Force version hit the ground at high speed. But because of safety features built into the airframe, 16 of the 20 personnel on board survived. If you think that's still one crash too many, then you better not look at the safety records of other rotorcraft in theater, because many of them are not faring as well. After 14 operational deployments and 100,000 flight hours, the Osprey is beginning to look like a real life-saver.
That's not the way the V-22 began its history. Conceived as a versatile aircraft that could combine the land-anywhere agility of a helicopter with the speed (280 miles per hour) and range (375 miles) of a fixed-wing aircraft, the Osprey suffered two serious accidents during its development. Those accidents delayed fielding and left a lasting impression on critics, who to this day allege it is a flawed aircraft. The Marine Corps vigorously disagrees, arguing it is a safer and more flexible way of getting troops from ship to shore than any other means available. A mounting body of evidence from operational deployments indicates the Marines are right. Not only is the V-22 less likely to be hit by ground fire than conventional helicopters (because it flies faster and higher), but when it is hit it suffers less damage and if it crashes occupants are more likely to survive.
Over the last ten years, the V-22 mishap rate has been about half the average for the entire Marine aircraft fleet, and it is currently the lowest of any rotorcraft in that fleet. These averages are adjusted to reflect time actually flown, so it really is a surprisingly safe aircraft, considering it only recently entered service. New airframes usually have higher mishap rates than aircraft that have been operated for many years. Of course, none of this would matter if the Osprey couldn't do much, but in fact it is living up to its potential for versatility, conducting everything from night raids and medical evacuations in Afghanistan to logistical support and humanitarian assistance in Haiti. It is also proving to be the most flexible airframe employed by Air Force special operators, who use it for an array of harrowing combat and rescue missions. Readiness rates for the Marine version are around 70 percent, which is quite respectable for a new and novel airframe.
But much of this progress has not been noticed by the political system, which finds it hard to forget the testing accidents that occurred many years ago. In fact, three different amendments are currently pending in Congress to delete some or all of the funding for the Osprey, and the president's bipartisan deficit panel suggested ending production early because the program had a "troubled history" of developmental problems. That's kind of like saying that Mr. Obama does not deserve reelection because he had a tough childhood, without looking at what he's done lately. With only $15 billion left to be spent in a $70 billion acquisition program, it makes no sense to cut the V-22 program just as the Marines are about to reach their inventory goal. Costs are down, readiness is up, and the Osprey has become the safest way of moving troops around combat zones. This is one program that deserves to stay on track.
----
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
Early Warning Blog, Lexington Institute
That's not the way the V-22 began its history. Conceived as a versatile aircraft that could combine the land-anywhere agility of a helicopter with the speed (280 miles per hour) and range (375 miles) of a fixed-wing aircraft, the Osprey suffered two serious accidents during its development. Those accidents delayed fielding and left a lasting impression on critics, who to this day allege it is a flawed aircraft. The Marine Corps vigorously disagrees, arguing it is a safer and more flexible way of getting troops from ship to shore than any other means available. A mounting body of evidence from operational deployments indicates the Marines are right. Not only is the V-22 less likely to be hit by ground fire than conventional helicopters (because it flies faster and higher), but when it is hit it suffers less damage and if it crashes occupants are more likely to survive.
Over the last ten years, the V-22 mishap rate has been about half the average for the entire Marine aircraft fleet, and it is currently the lowest of any rotorcraft in that fleet. These averages are adjusted to reflect time actually flown, so it really is a surprisingly safe aircraft, considering it only recently entered service. New airframes usually have higher mishap rates than aircraft that have been operated for many years. Of course, none of this would matter if the Osprey couldn't do much, but in fact it is living up to its potential for versatility, conducting everything from night raids and medical evacuations in Afghanistan to logistical support and humanitarian assistance in Haiti. It is also proving to be the most flexible airframe employed by Air Force special operators, who use it for an array of harrowing combat and rescue missions. Readiness rates for the Marine version are around 70 percent, which is quite respectable for a new and novel airframe.
But much of this progress has not been noticed by the political system, which finds it hard to forget the testing accidents that occurred many years ago. In fact, three different amendments are currently pending in Congress to delete some or all of the funding for the Osprey, and the president's bipartisan deficit panel suggested ending production early because the program had a "troubled history" of developmental problems. That's kind of like saying that Mr. Obama does not deserve reelection because he had a tough childhood, without looking at what he's done lately. With only $15 billion left to be spent in a $70 billion acquisition program, it makes no sense to cut the V-22 program just as the Marines are about to reach their inventory goal. Costs are down, readiness is up, and the Osprey has become the safest way of moving troops around combat zones. This is one program that deserves to stay on track.
----
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
Early Warning Blog, Lexington Institute
Loren B Thompson
Thompson's blog article may be factually correct, but that has never stopped anyone who perceives a particular weapons system as "taking money I should have to spend on XXXX" from trying to find each and every excuse to defame the weapons system.
It is good to remind people who carp about the "troubled history" of the V-22 about the "troubled history" of the F-14, which included the second aircraft built crashing on Long Island thanks to a hydraulic failure (both pilots got out, IIRC) and the Tomcat's long history of engine problems that caused loss of power in high energy maneuvers/dogfighting. (As I understand the problem, pilot technique on throttle movement was the key to not losing power all of a sudden at high AoA, but I may recall incorrectly ...)
The F-14 was a good weapons system with a "troubled history," so maybe the critics might be reminded that all new weapons systems have, whether we like it or not, growing pains.
I agree at it being absurd to trim a program (and thereby automatically driving the unit cost up by the stroke of a pen, and screwing contractors and subs very nicely in the process ... ) that has demonstrated an operational capability that meets real world mission requirements.
Sorry to see the EFV go. I expect that the USMC leadership is willing to reattack at a more propitious time on that leg of the Amphibious / From the Sea / OTH capability requirement.
I recall with some sadness how Comanche, years before it was actually cancelled, had strafing runs taken at it and it's large money pot ... due to it being a large money pot and other systems/programs trying to grab some of it, particularly during the funding starved Clinton years. (One Sec Army said very bluntly in the 90's that "maybe we can't afford Comanche" and it still took until the early 00's for the axe to finally fall).
It is good to remind people who carp about the "troubled history" of the V-22 about the "troubled history" of the F-14, which included the second aircraft built crashing on Long Island thanks to a hydraulic failure (both pilots got out, IIRC) and the Tomcat's long history of engine problems that caused loss of power in high energy maneuvers/dogfighting. (As I understand the problem, pilot technique on throttle movement was the key to not losing power all of a sudden at high AoA, but I may recall incorrectly ...)
The F-14 was a good weapons system with a "troubled history," so maybe the critics might be reminded that all new weapons systems have, whether we like it or not, growing pains.
I agree at it being absurd to trim a program (and thereby automatically driving the unit cost up by the stroke of a pen, and screwing contractors and subs very nicely in the process ... ) that has demonstrated an operational capability that meets real world mission requirements.
Sorry to see the EFV go. I expect that the USMC leadership is willing to reattack at a more propitious time on that leg of the Amphibious / From the Sea / OTH capability requirement.
I recall with some sadness how Comanche, years before it was actually cancelled, had strafing runs taken at it and it's large money pot ... due to it being a large money pot and other systems/programs trying to grab some of it, particularly during the funding starved Clinton years. (One Sec Army said very bluntly in the 90's that "maybe we can't afford Comanche" and it still took until the early 00's for the axe to finally fall).
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Awesome V-22 Osprey
Awesome V-22 Osprey, Made in Delco, Avoids DOD Cuts
There was good news for Delco today as the House voted down an amendment that would have cut funding for the V-22 Osprey, a tiltrotor aircraft used in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Osprey is manufactured in part by the some of the 5,900 Boeing workers in Delaware County.
Unofficial reports indicate that the V-22 Osprey is one of the coolest aircraft in the world.
The Delco Daily Times has the full story, but in summation, the V-22 Osprey is an American multi-mission, military, tiltrotor aircraft with both a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), and short takeoff and landing (STOL) capability. It is designed to combine the functionality of a conventional helicopter with the long-range, high-speed cruise performance of a turboprop aircraft (according to Wikipedia).
Political and military leaders have endeavored for decades to kill the project, but intrepid lawmakers like U.S. Rep. Pat Meehan and former Rep. Curt Weldon have managed over the years to protect it.
For those of you who say it’s hypocritical to advocate across-the-board spending cuts while protecting a program that many experts say is not worthwhile, you’ve obviously never seen one of these babies in action.
From the Delco Times story:
“This is an instrument that has proven itself in the theater of war,” said U.S. Rep. Pat Meehan, R-7, of Upper Darby.
Meehan vowed to fight for the program in recent months and applauded his congressional colleagues for voting against the amendment Tuesday.
“The success of this program has been validated by commanders in the field and the V-22 has been given high marks for the operational advantages it brings to combat operations,” Meehan wrote in the letter.
“Boeing is grateful for Congressman Meehan’s support of the V-22 Osprey program and we applaud the 325 members of Congress who joined him in supporting the program through yesterday’s vote,” said Andy Lee, spokesman for the Boeing Mobility Division, Wednesday. “The V-22 Osprey continues to receive high praise from the U.S. Marines and Air Force Special Operations Command for its outstanding performance in combat, ship-board and humanitarian deployments around the world. We are pleased that Congress is recognizing the critical role the Osprey is playing for the United States military.”
From the Defense Industry Daily
There was good news for Delco today as the House voted down an amendment that would have cut funding for the V-22 Osprey, a tiltrotor aircraft used in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Osprey is manufactured in part by the some of the 5,900 Boeing workers in Delaware County.
Unofficial reports indicate that the V-22 Osprey is one of the coolest aircraft in the world.
The Delco Daily Times has the full story, but in summation, the V-22 Osprey is an American multi-mission, military, tiltrotor aircraft with both a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), and short takeoff and landing (STOL) capability. It is designed to combine the functionality of a conventional helicopter with the long-range, high-speed cruise performance of a turboprop aircraft (according to Wikipedia).Political and military leaders have endeavored for decades to kill the project, but intrepid lawmakers like U.S. Rep. Pat Meehan and former Rep. Curt Weldon have managed over the years to protect it.
For those of you who say it’s hypocritical to advocate across-the-board spending cuts while protecting a program that many experts say is not worthwhile, you’ve obviously never seen one of these babies in action.
From the Delco Times story:
“This is an instrument that has proven itself in the theater of war,” said U.S. Rep. Pat Meehan, R-7, of Upper Darby.
Meehan vowed to fight for the program in recent months and applauded his congressional colleagues for voting against the amendment Tuesday.
“The success of this program has been validated by commanders in the field and the V-22 has been given high marks for the operational advantages it brings to combat operations,” Meehan wrote in the letter.
“Boeing is grateful for Congressman Meehan’s support of the V-22 Osprey program and we applaud the 325 members of Congress who joined him in supporting the program through yesterday’s vote,” said Andy Lee, spokesman for the Boeing Mobility Division, Wednesday. “The V-22 Osprey continues to receive high praise from the U.S. Marines and Air Force Special Operations Command for its outstanding performance in combat, ship-board and humanitarian deployments around the world. We are pleased that Congress is recognizing the critical role the Osprey is playing for the United States military.”
From the Defense Industry Daily
Here's an estimate.
100th was delivered in May 2008.
It is now Feb 2011
Delivery for 2010 was supposed to be 29.
Estimate: 160 delivered to date. ( I wonder how close I got ...)
100th was delivered in May 2008.
It is now Feb 2011
Delivery for 2010 was supposed to be 29.
Estimate: 160 delivered to date. ( I wonder how close I got ...)
Thursday morning, Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley said the amphibious vehicle goal as "aggressive, particularly at the four-year end."
Defining requirements, Stackley said, will involve a look at the entire amphibious warfare concept of operations, including the anti-ship cruise missile threat, because that will determine how closely the Navy's ships can stand-in. "If we start the new amphibious vehicle with the same requirements as the EFV, we'll likely get the same outcome."
Defining requirements, Stackley said, will involve a look at the entire amphibious warfare concept of operations, including the anti-ship cruise missile threat, because that will determine how closely the Navy's ships can stand-in. "If we start the new amphibious vehicle with the same requirements as the EFV, we'll likely get the same outcome."
What the guy means is the Navy and Marine Corps will change the criteria to fit the current equipment and claim they have OTH capability....it seems to me. What they will not do is admit they do not have OTH capability as it would shoot some current programs in the ass.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GI blues command the green, even when ideas don't fly
Arnold Garcia Jr., Commentary
Published: 7:29 p.m. Saturday, Feb. 19, 2011
All right, all you ex-GIs who never saw government money wasted during your time in the service: Fall out over there.
I hope you don't get too lonely all by yourself.
It might well be that someone left military service without ever having witnessed or been party to a total waste of government dough, but I've never met such an individual. If you're out there, give me a call. I'd be fascinated to hear your story.
I remember NCOs who supplemented their Army pay by selling the chow meant for the troops. In the early 1970s, there was a big scandal involving the black market sale of PX merchandise. More recently, a South Korean man was convicted of paying bribes to Army and Air Force Exchange Service officials to obtain lucrative contracts to sell Internet and phone service to U.S. troops stationed in South Korea.
The Army and Air Force Exchange Service sells deeply discounted and tax-free goods to military families trying to make ends meet on GI salaries. The Army and Air Force runs one program, the Navy and Marines run a separate one that does exactly the same thing. For that matter, the Army has an Air Force, and the Navy has an Army.
What brings all this to mind is the yammering about the federal deficit and all the self-righteous posturing about cutting the national budget and trimming the deficit and so on.
Professionally, I'm supposed to take all this quite seriously, but I find that difficult. I chuckle when I read reports about budget wrangling that note that defense and entitlement spending are pretty much left alone. The Defense Department eats 58 percent of the federal government's discretionary spending. So excluding the Pentagon from cost cutting is as effective as yelling "bang-bang" at the enemy.
The Pentagon is requesting $670.6 billion for the 2012 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. Included in the figure are $553 billion for its base budget and $117.8 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yeah, I know President Barack Obama talks tough about defense cuts in the future and that Secretary of Defense William Gates is talking about a reduction in force in a few years, but throwing a few thousand GIs out in the street is pennies compared to items left on the table.
Take, for example, that Marine-killing V22 Osprey aircraft built in Fort Worth. The government has spent $32 billion on this aircraft that is still not fully mission capable, even after more than 10 years of development. In 2000, two Osprey crashes killed 19 Marines.
According to a recent report by Bloomberg, the Osprey — a fixed-wing aircraft with tilting rotors designed to give it vertical take off capability — is mission ready only 57 percent of the time. Specifications are that it be ready to fly 82 percent of the time. I guess $32 billion doesn't buy much quality these days.
The Osprey isn't much in the field, but it's hell at the conference table. When Dick Cheney was secretary of defense in 1989, he tried to zero out the Osprey's funding. Not only was Cheney overruled by Congress, it also voted to pour more money into the program.
Now, that's tough.
Most business people I know would have quit throwing good money after bad a long time ago or sued the manufacturer for breach of contract and asked for the money back. Uncle Sam, though, gives his nephews and nieces lots of time to try and get it right and almost never asks for the money back when they don't.
The Osprey is protected zealously by members of the Texas congressional delegation who want to end wasteful government spending in somebody else's district.
What the heck: You can always recruit more Marines, right?
After years of effort and billions of dollars down the dumper, Congress finally killed the development of an alternate engine to the Joint Strike Fighter. The bottom line is that defense officials have been saying since 2006 that the alternate engine isn't needed, but Congress kept funding it. The alternate engine was being built in Ohio, a politically important state to both parties and the home state of John Boehner, the newly elected speaker of the House.
Politicians are reluctant to vote against defense spending for fear that someone will holler that they don't support the troops.
Supporting the troops means providing them with the tools they need to do the job and ensuring that those tools work effectively. Supporting the troops means not only providing them with good equipment and decent housing — don't get me started again about those GIs electrocuted in shower facilities built by KBR Inc. — and the best medical care when they need it.
The vote in the House to cut the alternate engine program is huge. And good. It's way past time to take the halos off those cows in the Pentagon's pasture.
The entitlement stuff? Well, that's another story altogether. I can't wait to hear it.
Arnold Garcia Jr., Commentary
Published: 7:29 p.m. Saturday, Feb. 19, 2011
All right, all you ex-GIs who never saw government money wasted during your time in the service: Fall out over there.
I hope you don't get too lonely all by yourself.
It might well be that someone left military service without ever having witnessed or been party to a total waste of government dough, but I've never met such an individual. If you're out there, give me a call. I'd be fascinated to hear your story.
I remember NCOs who supplemented their Army pay by selling the chow meant for the troops. In the early 1970s, there was a big scandal involving the black market sale of PX merchandise. More recently, a South Korean man was convicted of paying bribes to Army and Air Force Exchange Service officials to obtain lucrative contracts to sell Internet and phone service to U.S. troops stationed in South Korea.
The Army and Air Force Exchange Service sells deeply discounted and tax-free goods to military families trying to make ends meet on GI salaries. The Army and Air Force runs one program, the Navy and Marines run a separate one that does exactly the same thing. For that matter, the Army has an Air Force, and the Navy has an Army.
What brings all this to mind is the yammering about the federal deficit and all the self-righteous posturing about cutting the national budget and trimming the deficit and so on.
Professionally, I'm supposed to take all this quite seriously, but I find that difficult. I chuckle when I read reports about budget wrangling that note that defense and entitlement spending are pretty much left alone. The Defense Department eats 58 percent of the federal government's discretionary spending. So excluding the Pentagon from cost cutting is as effective as yelling "bang-bang" at the enemy.
The Pentagon is requesting $670.6 billion for the 2012 fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. Included in the figure are $553 billion for its base budget and $117.8 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yeah, I know President Barack Obama talks tough about defense cuts in the future and that Secretary of Defense William Gates is talking about a reduction in force in a few years, but throwing a few thousand GIs out in the street is pennies compared to items left on the table.
Take, for example, that Marine-killing V22 Osprey aircraft built in Fort Worth. The government has spent $32 billion on this aircraft that is still not fully mission capable, even after more than 10 years of development. In 2000, two Osprey crashes killed 19 Marines.
According to a recent report by Bloomberg, the Osprey — a fixed-wing aircraft with tilting rotors designed to give it vertical take off capability — is mission ready only 57 percent of the time. Specifications are that it be ready to fly 82 percent of the time. I guess $32 billion doesn't buy much quality these days.
The Osprey isn't much in the field, but it's hell at the conference table. When Dick Cheney was secretary of defense in 1989, he tried to zero out the Osprey's funding. Not only was Cheney overruled by Congress, it also voted to pour more money into the program.
Now, that's tough.
Most business people I know would have quit throwing good money after bad a long time ago or sued the manufacturer for breach of contract and asked for the money back. Uncle Sam, though, gives his nephews and nieces lots of time to try and get it right and almost never asks for the money back when they don't.
The Osprey is protected zealously by members of the Texas congressional delegation who want to end wasteful government spending in somebody else's district.
What the heck: You can always recruit more Marines, right?
After years of effort and billions of dollars down the dumper, Congress finally killed the development of an alternate engine to the Joint Strike Fighter. The bottom line is that defense officials have been saying since 2006 that the alternate engine isn't needed, but Congress kept funding it. The alternate engine was being built in Ohio, a politically important state to both parties and the home state of John Boehner, the newly elected speaker of the House.
Politicians are reluctant to vote against defense spending for fear that someone will holler that they don't support the troops.
Supporting the troops means providing them with the tools they need to do the job and ensuring that those tools work effectively. Supporting the troops means not only providing them with good equipment and decent housing — don't get me started again about those GIs electrocuted in shower facilities built by KBR Inc. — and the best medical care when they need it.
The vote in the House to cut the alternate engine program is huge. And good. It's way past time to take the halos off those cows in the Pentagon's pasture.
The entitlement stuff? Well, that's another story altogether. I can't wait to hear it.
Boy I dont know where Mr Garcia is getting is facts, but looks like he is rehashing the same old tired and increasingly invalid arguments.
Lets see...
Not built it Ft Worth, chief. Last I checked they are still built in Amarillo. And for not being mission capable, they sure seem to be flying them quite a lot.
A recent report by Bloomberg? Funny how according to the Lexington Institute's article from last week: "Readiness rates for the Marine version are around 70 percent, which is quite respectable for a new and novel airframe."
Come on V22 haters, you can do better than that.
Lets see...
Take, for example, that Marine-killing V22 Osprey aircraft built in Fort Worth. The government has spent $32 billion on this aircraft that is still not fully mission capable, even after more than 10 years of development
According to a recent report by Bloomberg, the Osprey — a fixed-wing aircraft with tilting rotors designed to give it vertical take off capability — is mission ready only 57 percent of the time. Specifications are that it be ready to fly 82 percent of the time.
Come on V22 haters, you can do better than that.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please ask him for a retraction.
Last edited by Dan Reno; 21st Feb 2011 at 18:12.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perfect Job for the V-22 !!!
US Unable to Evacuate
Diplomats from Libya !
(Send in the Marines on V-22s)Diplomats from Libya !
Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2011 4:44:58 PM by Red Badger
The United States says it has not been able to move some of its non-essential diplomats from Libya, as governments send airplanes and ships to pick up their citizens stranded by Libya's bloody unrest.
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Tuesday the United States was looking at various ways to move the diplomats, their families, and other Americans out of Libya. He did not elaborate on why the U.S. was unable to do so on Tuesday.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the safety and wellbeing of Americans there is the highest U.S. priority.
Meanwhile, Britain's foreign secretary says his country has redeployed a warship closer to Libya to aid in the evacuation effort. William Hague says the Royal Navy warship HMS Cumberland has been put on standby to help Britons return home from Libya, should it be needed.
The U.S., European countries and Libya's neighbors are evacuating thousands of foreign citizens trying to flee deadly violence triggered by a Libyan uprising against longtime leader Moammar Gadhafi.
The Netherlands and France have confirmed that their planes received permission to land in the city of Tripoli, but the French news agency reports that one of France's three planes has been diverted to Malta.
Italy's ENI natural gas company says it is evacuating all non-essential staff and their families from the country Tuesday. The Associated Press reports that ENI is Libya's largest foreign operator and takes one-third of Libya's oil and gas production.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said Tuesday Cairo is sending military and civilian aircraft to Libya to bring home some of the hundreds of thousands of Egyptians who live there. But he said the Egyptian planes would not be landing in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi - one of the cities hit hardest by the violence - because its airport has been destroyed. He did not elaborate.
Egyptian security sources say Cairo's new military rulers also ordered troop reinforcements to Egypt's side of the border with Libya in response to the Libyan unrest. Egyptian authorities also have extended the opening hours of the Slum border crossing with Libya and sent medical teams to the site to accommodate thousands of Egyptians fleeing by land.
The Turkish government says it has sent several ships to the Libyan coast to pick up thousands of Turkish workers stranded in Benghazi. Many of the Turkish citizens gathered in a Benghazi stadium Tuesday as they waited for the ships to arrive at the city's port.
Turkey says it has 25,000 citizens in Libya, many of them working in construction. Tunisia says more than 3,000 of its nationals already have fled Libya, mostly by land, and more are waiting to leave by air. The Philippines said Tuesday it will help Philippine workers trying to leave Libya by paying for their flights. At least 26,000 Philippine citizens reside there. South Korea also urged its workers in Libya to return home after looters attacked several South Korean-operated construction sites.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hootnanny
V-22 will do three trips in the time it takes the ch-53 to do one.
CH-53 A-B
V-22 A-B-A-B-A-B
Count the dashes.
That disregards loading unloating times and probable refueling, not to mention that the shorter the legs become the worse it gets with a larger percentage of V-22 time taken on climb and approach, like transporting pax across a flooded river.
V-22 will do three trips in the time it takes the ch-53 to do one.
CH-53 A-B
V-22 A-B-A-B-A-B
Count the dashes.
That disregards loading unloating times and probable refueling, not to mention that the shorter the legs become the worse it gets with a larger percentage of V-22 time taken on climb and approach, like transporting pax across a flooded river.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hootnanny
Quote:
"Although the Osprey has a smaller capacity of 25 troops in comparison to the CH-53 helicopter which can carry 55 troops, the V-22 can make three trips (75 troops landed) to every one made by the CH-53. The Osprey has faced development, technical, and political challenges but has become and will remain a very useful tool for military and coast guard application for years to come."
My last post didn't make it for some reason. Lets say a V-22 takes off from point A at the same time as a CH-53, both bound for B. After dropping off troops at B the V-22 returns to A, back to B, back to A and lands the third load at B just as the CH-53 lands. In order to do that the V-22 must fly the A-B distance five times.
That would be five times the speed of the CH-53, except you have to load and unload pax so it would be a bit worse than that, somewhere around the speed of sound.
Quote:
"Although the Osprey has a smaller capacity of 25 troops in comparison to the CH-53 helicopter which can carry 55 troops, the V-22 can make three trips (75 troops landed) to every one made by the CH-53. The Osprey has faced development, technical, and political challenges but has become and will remain a very useful tool for military and coast guard application for years to come."
My last post didn't make it for some reason. Lets say a V-22 takes off from point A at the same time as a CH-53, both bound for B. After dropping off troops at B the V-22 returns to A, back to B, back to A and lands the third load at B just as the CH-53 lands. In order to do that the V-22 must fly the A-B distance five times.
That would be five times the speed of the CH-53, except you have to load and unload pax so it would be a bit worse than that, somewhere around the speed of sound.