What's the latest news of the V22 Osprey?
For Dan Reno: an aircraft not being "perfect" does not mean it should be scrapped. Otherwise, there would have been no space program, and the F-14 would never have been built, nor the F-18.
For SASless:
Target desig via L-word does not require a SoF team on the ground. Agree with your point on infiltrating teams to bolster the backbone of the various anti Gadhaffi forces ... if we have a clue what tribal groupings are matched with what others.
A very nice link over at JB to an article on the clans and tribes of Libya:
Libyan People & Ethnic Tribes
Interesting, though a bit confusing to me.
For SASless:
Target desig via L-word does not require a SoF team on the ground. Agree with your point on infiltrating teams to bolster the backbone of the various anti Gadhaffi forces ... if we have a clue what tribal groupings are matched with what others.
A very nice link over at JB to an article on the clans and tribes of Libya:
Libyan People & Ethnic Tribes
Interesting, though a bit confusing to me.
Dan, what are you talking about? Of course you didn't say it was perfect, you imply, by your apparent endorsement of that lame brained article, that it needs to be scrapped.
I am not sure if you are old enought to recall the violent objections to the F/A-18 (A model in particular), which while a decent aircraft, had some non trivial range/fuel limitations, had the infamous tail cracks, and a variety of other problems as it was fielded. (Blue Angel number five crashed back in 1987, flame out, low altitude. Seems there was a problem with fuel pumps not working when aircraft is inverted ... which is the kind of stuff Mescherschmidts and Spitfires had resolved back in WW II ...)
Anyhow, the bitter hyperbole against the V-22 at this point is nothing more than noise for the sake of noise. The CH-46 ISN'T coming back and USMC must have medium lift capability. Osprey fufills that requirement well enough, whether you like the price per copy or not.
It's bad enough that U.S. taxpayers have to continue to support the care and feeding of this particular Osprey. Worse, we're inflicting the bird on others.
...
The V-22 is one animal well worth driving toward extinction.
...
The V-22 is one animal well worth driving toward extinction.
Anyhow, the bitter hyperbole against the V-22 at this point is nothing more than noise for the sake of noise. The CH-46 ISN'T coming back and USMC must have medium lift capability. Osprey fufills that requirement well enough, whether you like the price per copy or not.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've posted the pro & con about the V-22 so no need to get hysterical about some nuts & bolts...carelessly fastened together.
"Osprey fufills that requirement well enough,"
BTW, 'well enough' is quite a stretch when describing the V-22's abilty to replace the H-46...it simply cannot in a real Combat Situation.
"Osprey fufills that requirement well enough,"
BTW, 'well enough' is quite a stretch when describing the V-22's abilty to replace the H-46...it simply cannot in a real Combat Situation.
US jet crashes in Libya, both crew are safe - Yahoo! News
BERLIN – A U.S. fighter jet crashed in Libya after an apparent equipment malfunction but both crewmembers were able to eject and were back in American hands with only minor injuries, U.S. officials said Tuesday.
The F-15E Strike Eagle jet was conducting a mission Monday night against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's air defenses when it crashed at 2130 GMT (5:30 p.m. EDT), said Lt. Cmdr. Karin Burzynski, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Africa Command.
A spokesman for the Libyan opposition, Mohammed Ali, said the U.S. plane went down about 25 miles (40 kilometers) outside of the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi, Libya's second-largest city.
Britain's Telegraph newspaper published a series of photographs it said was the wreckage of the plane, showing people milling around the burned-out aircraft in a Libyan field.
One of the jet's airmen landed in a field of sheep after ejecting from the plane, then raised his hands and called out "OK, OK" to a crowd who had gathered, the Telegraph cited witness Younis Amruni, 27, as saying.
"I hugged him and said: 'Don't be scared, we are your friends,'" Amruni told the newspaper, adding that people then lined up to shake the airman's hand.
"We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies," he said. "We gave him juice and then the revolutionary military people took him away."
A Marine Corps Osprey search and rescue aircraft retrieved the main pilot, while the second crew member, a weapon systems officer who is also a pilot, was recovered by rebel forces and is now in American hands, a U.S. official said in Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
Amruni said
The F-15E Strike Eagle jet was conducting a mission Monday night against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's air defenses when it crashed at 2130 GMT (5:30 p.m. EDT), said Lt. Cmdr. Karin Burzynski, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Africa Command.
A spokesman for the Libyan opposition, Mohammed Ali, said the U.S. plane went down about 25 miles (40 kilometers) outside of the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi, Libya's second-largest city.
Britain's Telegraph newspaper published a series of photographs it said was the wreckage of the plane, showing people milling around the burned-out aircraft in a Libyan field.
One of the jet's airmen landed in a field of sheep after ejecting from the plane, then raised his hands and called out "OK, OK" to a crowd who had gathered, the Telegraph cited witness Younis Amruni, 27, as saying.
"I hugged him and said: 'Don't be scared, we are your friends,'" Amruni told the newspaper, adding that people then lined up to shake the airman's hand.
"We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies," he said. "We gave him juice and then the revolutionary military people took him away."
A Marine Corps Osprey search and rescue aircraft retrieved the main pilot, while the second crew member, a weapon systems officer who is also a pilot, was recovered by rebel forces and is now in American hands, a U.S. official said in Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
Amruni said
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Osprey was chosen for recovering the downed pilots not because it could do the job "well enough," but because it was the "best" choice for the rescue mission where speed, range, and quiteness were mission critical capabilities.
Both pilots were rescued by V-22s:
US jet crashes in Libya due to apparent equipment malfunction, both crew safe and in US hands - The Washington Post
(not sure if they needed to 'shoot' before they swooped in as it sounds like one of Sas's 'non-hot LZs'!)
Both pilots were rescued by V-22s:
US jet crashes in Libya due to apparent equipment malfunction, both crew safe and in US hands
By Associated Press, Tuesday, March 22, 10:03 AM
BERLIN — A U.S. fighter jet crashed in Libya after an apparent equipment malfunction but both crewmembers were able to eject and were back in American hands with only minor injuries, U.S. officials said Tuesday.
The F-15E Strike Eagle jet was conducting a mission Monday night against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s air defenses when it crashed at 2130 GMT (5:30 p.m. EDT), said Lt. Cmdr. Karin Burzynski, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Africa Command.
A spokesman for the Libyan opposition, Mohammed Ali, said the U.S. plane went down about 25 miles (40 kilometers) outside of the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city.
Britain’s Telegraph newspaper published a series of photographs it said was the wreckage of the plane, showing people milling around the burned-out aircraft in a Libyan field.
One of the jet’s airmen landed in a field of sheep after ejecting from the plane, then raised his hands and called out “OK, OK” to a crowd who had gathered, the Telegraph cited witness Younis Amruni, 27, as saying.
“I hugged him and said: ‘Don’t be scared, we are your friends,’” Amruni told the newspaper, adding that people then lined up to shake the airman’s hand.
“We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies,” he said. “We gave him juice and then the revolutionary military people took him away.”
A Marine Corps Osprey search and rescue aircraft retrieved the main pilot, while the second crew member, a weapon systems officer who is also a pilot, was recovered by rebel forces and is now in American hands, a U.S. official said in Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
Amruni said the Osprey fired shots to keep locals away, then swooped in and rescued the second crew member.
The two were separated after ejecting from the crippled jet at high altitude and drifting down to different locations, Africa Command spokesman Vince Crawley said, adding they sustained minor injuries.
The aircraft, based out of Royal Air Force Lakenheath, England, was flying out of Italy’s Aviano Air Base in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn. The cause of the crash is being investigated.
The Air Force has said only that B-2, F-15 and F-16 fighters are participating in operations over Libya. The U.S. involvement in Libya is being run by Africa Command, which is based in Stuttgart, Germany.
The air campaign by U.S. and European militaries that began Saturday has rearranged the map in Libya and rescued rebels from what had appeared to be imminent defeat.
On Monday night, Libyan state TV said a new round of strikes had begun in the capital, Tripoli, marking the third night of bombardment.
But while the airstrikes can stop Gadhafi’s troops from attacking rebel cities — in line with the U.N. mandate to protect civilians — the United States, at least, has appeared deeply reluctant to go beyond that toward actively helping the rebel cause to oust the Libyan leader.
By Associated Press, Tuesday, March 22, 10:03 AM
BERLIN — A U.S. fighter jet crashed in Libya after an apparent equipment malfunction but both crewmembers were able to eject and were back in American hands with only minor injuries, U.S. officials said Tuesday.
The F-15E Strike Eagle jet was conducting a mission Monday night against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s air defenses when it crashed at 2130 GMT (5:30 p.m. EDT), said Lt. Cmdr. Karin Burzynski, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Africa Command.
A spokesman for the Libyan opposition, Mohammed Ali, said the U.S. plane went down about 25 miles (40 kilometers) outside of the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city.
Britain’s Telegraph newspaper published a series of photographs it said was the wreckage of the plane, showing people milling around the burned-out aircraft in a Libyan field.
One of the jet’s airmen landed in a field of sheep after ejecting from the plane, then raised his hands and called out “OK, OK” to a crowd who had gathered, the Telegraph cited witness Younis Amruni, 27, as saying.
“I hugged him and said: ‘Don’t be scared, we are your friends,’” Amruni told the newspaper, adding that people then lined up to shake the airman’s hand.
“We are so grateful to these men who are protecting the skies,” he said. “We gave him juice and then the revolutionary military people took him away.”
A Marine Corps Osprey search and rescue aircraft retrieved the main pilot, while the second crew member, a weapon systems officer who is also a pilot, was recovered by rebel forces and is now in American hands, a U.S. official said in Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
Amruni said the Osprey fired shots to keep locals away, then swooped in and rescued the second crew member.
The two were separated after ejecting from the crippled jet at high altitude and drifting down to different locations, Africa Command spokesman Vince Crawley said, adding they sustained minor injuries.
The aircraft, based out of Royal Air Force Lakenheath, England, was flying out of Italy’s Aviano Air Base in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn. The cause of the crash is being investigated.
The Air Force has said only that B-2, F-15 and F-16 fighters are participating in operations over Libya. The U.S. involvement in Libya is being run by Africa Command, which is based in Stuttgart, Germany.
The air campaign by U.S. and European militaries that began Saturday has rearranged the map in Libya and rescued rebels from what had appeared to be imminent defeat.
On Monday night, Libyan state TV said a new round of strikes had begun in the capital, Tripoli, marking the third night of bombardment.
But while the airstrikes can stop Gadhafi’s troops from attacking rebel cities — in line with the U.N. mandate to protect civilians — the United States, at least, has appeared deeply reluctant to go beyond that toward actively helping the rebel cause to oust the Libyan leader.
(not sure if they needed to 'shoot' before they swooped in as it sounds like one of Sas's 'non-hot LZs'!)
BTW, 'well enough' is quite a stretch when describing the V-22's abilty to replace the H-46...it simply cannot in a real Combat Situation.
The Frog is and was a great bird, but like any aircraft, had some limitations. To pretend that the Osprey can't perform its mission strikes me as another case of ongoing Ostrich operations ...
21st century: I think that you slightly overstate the case
The Osprey was chosen for recovering the downed pilots not because it could do the job "well enough," but because it was the "best" choice for the rescue mission where speed, range, and quiteness were mission critical capabilities.
Speed? OK, I'll buy that. CSAR mission "quick is good" works for me.
Range? Mission Critical? In this case?
Funny, when I was playing around in the Gulf of Sidra in 80's, a Navy Reserve unit had a CSAR H-3 on board one of the small boys ... for about the same area you are talking about here, which is Littoral Libya. I don't buy your overstatement.
Quietness is mission critical for this CSAR mission?
Where do you come up with that, and how is an Osprey "quiet" in some mission critical way?
Hyperbole ain't selling well, though I am sure the aircrew were happy to be picked up and carried with some haste to where they needed to go.
Yay, Osprey! 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf_50:
The Osprey does offer better range particularly compared to the a/c it is replacing as has been shown in previous posts. However, in this case I agree with you that range was probably not a factor dependent upon where the ship was located when they launched.
Regarding other issues, it sounds like you may have been "out of the business" for a while. The water rescues you observed did not require 'quiet operations,' but talk to the Spec Ops and CSAR guys who operate in a potentially hostile land rescue environment where gov't troops are looking to shoot down anything they can and you will be told that getting in and out 'fast and quiet' are the highest priorities.
Lonewolf_50 says:
Because the Osprey is so much quieter in the airplane mode it can travel en route with a minimal sound footprint, and those on the ground don't hear it until it is almost on top of you. See standard approach profile and note the noise level compared to other vertical lift a/c:
Lonewolf_50 says:
You ain't buyin, and I ain't sellin!
Just the facts, ma'am...
The Osprey does offer better range particularly compared to the a/c it is replacing as has been shown in previous posts. However, in this case I agree with you that range was probably not a factor dependent upon where the ship was located when they launched.
Regarding other issues, it sounds like you may have been "out of the business" for a while. The water rescues you observed did not require 'quiet operations,' but talk to the Spec Ops and CSAR guys who operate in a potentially hostile land rescue environment where gov't troops are looking to shoot down anything they can and you will be told that getting in and out 'fast and quiet' are the highest priorities.
Lonewolf_50 says:
Quietness is mission critical for this CSAR mission?
Where do you come up with that, and how is an Osprey "quiet" in some mission critical way?
Where do you come up with that, and how is an Osprey "quiet" in some mission critical way?
Lonewolf_50 says:
Hyperbole ain't selling well,
Just the facts, ma'am...
Lonewolf_50:
I have indeed been out of the business for a few years, but you might wish to re-read what I posted. Perhaps I was using too much brevity.
I was not talking about water rescues. I was specifically talking about assigning the CSAR trained air crews who, in the 80's, were mostly in the Reserve Helicopter squadrons.
EDIT: I now recall the squadron. HC-9. I think it got folded into one of the HCS squadrons in CA when it turned in its H-3's and got HH-60H's. (Early 90's). Paul (forget last name) was one of the det that showed up for that OP. Ran into him some years later in the Seahawk community, West Coast.
Anyway, when Dorado Canyon went into play, most of the AD helo crews were in either cargo, or ASW, specialists and the Overland CSAR was not in most Naval Helicopter Squadron ROC/POE except in VERY permissive environments. (I seem to recall that USMC helicopters had CSAR tasks in less permissive environments ... We had no Gators with us on that OP. I was speaking purely from a Naval PoV, as it was a purely Naval operation ... with a few nice Aardvarks tossed in to keep the USAF happy. :P )
Had we only needed water rescues, the destroyer's organic helo would have sufficed. What was predicted as a necessity for the raids on Libya in that operation were Overland CSAR. So, the CSAR specialists were summoned.
I became accutely aware of the internal bun fight within the Navy in re Roles and Missions, and where CSAR fit in, during the 90's. We were fighting for hours and missions in the FRS/RAG syllabus, and the TREAD matrices, and running into the Clinton era "you'll get no money and like it" response.
Things have changed a bit since, as has the required NVG training we got no funding for back then ... and more.
What the Osprey can do is fly, but it can't fly silently.
I don't see this particular CSAR mission as having to require "silence" though it is wonderful that the Osprey can
a. get there faster'
b. provide a lower acoustic signature while ingressing and egressing
Can you show me that this mission was up against acoustic sensors that would render that difference significant? If so, I'll accept your argument that this lower sound profile (a good thing in its own right!) was 'mission critical' for this CSAR mission.
Given the tactical template, I'd say this wasn't the sort of non-permissive CSAR that calls for that feature in a mission critical sense. Of course, I wasn't in the OPS brief on Kearsage, so there might have been factors I am blissfully unaware of that made that feature more important.
All in all, I are an Osprey fan, and have been of the tilt rotor capability since the XV-15 flew in the early 80's. Glad it's finally here and doing its thing.
Regarding other issues, it sounds like you may have been "out of the business" for a while. The water rescues you observed did not require 'quiet operations,'
I was not talking about water rescues. I was specifically talking about assigning the CSAR trained air crews who, in the 80's, were mostly in the Reserve Helicopter squadrons.
EDIT: I now recall the squadron. HC-9. I think it got folded into one of the HCS squadrons in CA when it turned in its H-3's and got HH-60H's. (Early 90's). Paul (forget last name) was one of the det that showed up for that OP. Ran into him some years later in the Seahawk community, West Coast.
Anyway, when Dorado Canyon went into play, most of the AD helo crews were in either cargo, or ASW, specialists and the Overland CSAR was not in most Naval Helicopter Squadron ROC/POE except in VERY permissive environments. (I seem to recall that USMC helicopters had CSAR tasks in less permissive environments ... We had no Gators with us on that OP. I was speaking purely from a Naval PoV, as it was a purely Naval operation ... with a few nice Aardvarks tossed in to keep the USAF happy. :P )
Had we only needed water rescues, the destroyer's organic helo would have sufficed. What was predicted as a necessity for the raids on Libya in that operation were Overland CSAR. So, the CSAR specialists were summoned.
I became accutely aware of the internal bun fight within the Navy in re Roles and Missions, and where CSAR fit in, during the 90's. We were fighting for hours and missions in the FRS/RAG syllabus, and the TREAD matrices, and running into the Clinton era "you'll get no money and like it" response.
Things have changed a bit since, as has the required NVG training we got no funding for back then ... and more.
Because the Osprey is so much quieter in the airplane mode it can travel en route with a minimal sound footprint, and those on the ground don't hear it until it is almost on top of you. See standard approach profile and note the noise level compared to other vertical lift a/c:
I don't see this particular CSAR mission as having to require "silence" though it is wonderful that the Osprey can
a. get there faster'
b. provide a lower acoustic signature while ingressing and egressing
Can you show me that this mission was up against acoustic sensors that would render that difference significant? If so, I'll accept your argument that this lower sound profile (a good thing in its own right!) was 'mission critical' for this CSAR mission.
Given the tactical template, I'd say this wasn't the sort of non-permissive CSAR that calls for that feature in a mission critical sense. Of course, I wasn't in the OPS brief on Kearsage, so there might have been factors I am blissfully unaware of that made that feature more important.
All in all, I are an Osprey fan, and have been of the tilt rotor capability since the XV-15 flew in the early 80's. Glad it's finally here and doing its thing.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 22nd Mar 2011 at 19:05.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf_50,
Thanks for a 'non-brevity' version of your experience in that neck of the woods. Sounds like you had some interesting experiences. I was in the USAF at that time and the Aardvarks performance did keep us happy!
Lonewolf_50 says:
No powered-aircraft in existence can fly silently, but in the airplane mode the Osprey is the quietest of any vertical lift aircraft in it's class.
The only 'acoustic sensors' I am aware of are the ears on the guys manning the anti-aircraft guns.
Lonewolf_50 says:
I too became interested in tiltrotor technology with the intro of the XV-15 and was fortunate enough to get to fly it a couple of times (it actually first flew in '77). Tiltrotors will never be the perfect airplane and will never be the perfect helicopter -- but they can do things that no other aircraft can do and certainly have their place in today's military.
Thanks for a 'non-brevity' version of your experience in that neck of the woods. Sounds like you had some interesting experiences. I was in the USAF at that time and the Aardvarks performance did keep us happy!
Lonewolf_50 says:
What the Osprey can do is fly, but it can't fly silently.
Can you show me that this mission was up against acoustic sensors that would render that difference significant?
Can you show me that this mission was up against acoustic sensors that would render that difference significant?
The only 'acoustic sensors' I am aware of are the ears on the guys manning the anti-aircraft guns.
Lonewolf_50 says:
All in all, I are an Osprey fan, and have been of the tilt rotor capability since the XV-15 flew in the early 80's.
Osprey fufills that requirement well enough, whether you like the price per copy or not.
C'mon sas, thats out of context and you know it 
Half of Mr Thompson's article was arguing the merits of comparing up front airframe cost versus lifetime costs, wherein cost per seat mile the V22 excels.
Half of Mr Thompson's article was arguing the merits of comparing up front airframe cost versus lifetime costs, wherein cost per seat mile the V22 excels.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Western MA
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAGW Issues Spending Cut of the Week: USMC’s V-22 Osprey
Thursday, Apr. 07, 2011
WASHINGTON -- Today, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) issued its weekly spending cut alert aimed at the United States Marine Corps’ V-22 Osprey, a tilt-rotor aircraft designed to fly as fast as a turboprop airplane while retaining the ability to take off and land vertically. Between 1993 and 2007, taxpayers spent $22 billion on the V-22; 30 Marines lost their lives due to equipment malfunctions, all before the aircraft ever entered combat.
Richard Whittle’s book “The Dream Machine” called the project a “poster child for what’s wrong with the defense acquisition system.” Despite numerous attempts to kill the aircraft, including one by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in 1989, the project kept getting funded. Politicians and lobbyists from Texas and Pennsylvania, where the aircraft is produced by Bell Helicopter and Boeing, respectively, formed the Tiltrotor Technology Coalition in 1990, and by 2008 the Department of Defense had approved a $10.8 billion procurement program.
The V-22 has repeatedly proven itself to be dangerous and expensive while failing to meet the performance objectives set out in the original project. It was designed to be an assault aircraft, but has been used almost exclusively for transport, and its ability to fly aggressively under duress has not been proven. A 2009 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report stated that the V-22 “can complete missions assigned in low-threat environments,” but that “challenges may limit its ability to accomplish the full repertoire of missions of the legacy helicopters it is replacing.” In other words, despite operations and support costs that have been estimated at $75 billion for the completion of the program, the V-22 is in some ways worse than its predecessors. The GAO concluded that “alternatives should be re-considered.”
“Marines receive roughly 5 percent of the country’s defense budget and are an integral part of nearly all combat and aid missions,” said CAGW President Tom Schatz. “However, the V-22 project is among the most egregious illustrations of the Defense Department’s inefficient procurement process, which on average results in research and development cost overruns of 42 percent and 22 month delays, according to a GAO report from March of 2009. As Congress wages fiscal war over a few billion dollars in cuts to $3.8 trillion budget, these albatrosses – at $122 million apiece – should be scrapped.”
The V-22 Osprey has been included since 2005 in CAGW’s Prime Cuts database, a compendium of 763 waste-cutting recommendations that would save taxpayers $350 billion in the first year and $2.2 trillion over five years.
Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, mismanagement and abuse in government. The Spending Cut of the Week calls attention to a federal program that is wasteful or duplicative.
Read more: CAGW Issues Spending Cut of the Week: USMC’s V-22 Osprey - Business Wire - SunHerald.com
WASHINGTON -- Today, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) issued its weekly spending cut alert aimed at the United States Marine Corps’ V-22 Osprey, a tilt-rotor aircraft designed to fly as fast as a turboprop airplane while retaining the ability to take off and land vertically. Between 1993 and 2007, taxpayers spent $22 billion on the V-22; 30 Marines lost their lives due to equipment malfunctions, all before the aircraft ever entered combat.
Richard Whittle’s book “The Dream Machine” called the project a “poster child for what’s wrong with the defense acquisition system.” Despite numerous attempts to kill the aircraft, including one by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in 1989, the project kept getting funded. Politicians and lobbyists from Texas and Pennsylvania, where the aircraft is produced by Bell Helicopter and Boeing, respectively, formed the Tiltrotor Technology Coalition in 1990, and by 2008 the Department of Defense had approved a $10.8 billion procurement program.
The V-22 has repeatedly proven itself to be dangerous and expensive while failing to meet the performance objectives set out in the original project. It was designed to be an assault aircraft, but has been used almost exclusively for transport, and its ability to fly aggressively under duress has not been proven. A 2009 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report stated that the V-22 “can complete missions assigned in low-threat environments,” but that “challenges may limit its ability to accomplish the full repertoire of missions of the legacy helicopters it is replacing.” In other words, despite operations and support costs that have been estimated at $75 billion for the completion of the program, the V-22 is in some ways worse than its predecessors. The GAO concluded that “alternatives should be re-considered.”
“Marines receive roughly 5 percent of the country’s defense budget and are an integral part of nearly all combat and aid missions,” said CAGW President Tom Schatz. “However, the V-22 project is among the most egregious illustrations of the Defense Department’s inefficient procurement process, which on average results in research and development cost overruns of 42 percent and 22 month delays, according to a GAO report from March of 2009. As Congress wages fiscal war over a few billion dollars in cuts to $3.8 trillion budget, these albatrosses – at $122 million apiece – should be scrapped.”
The V-22 Osprey has been included since 2005 in CAGW’s Prime Cuts database, a compendium of 763 waste-cutting recommendations that would save taxpayers $350 billion in the first year and $2.2 trillion over five years.
Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, mismanagement and abuse in government. The Spending Cut of the Week calls attention to a federal program that is wasteful or duplicative.
Read more: CAGW Issues Spending Cut of the Week: USMC’s V-22 Osprey - Business Wire - SunHerald.com
Sans.....how does the 22 rate against the 53D for Ton Mile of cargo carried?
Not sure of the numbers, but youre getting into mission creep there, are you not? The V22 is not a heavy lift asset, so I gather its never been optimized for cost-per-tonne metrics.
The 53(K) will be serving alongside the V22, so there is your "efficient" heavy hauler.
The 53(K) will be serving alongside the V22, so there is your "efficient" heavy hauler.
The V-22 has repeatedly proven itself to be dangerous and expensive while failing to meet the performance objectives set out in the original project.
This statement is a grand case of cherry picking, with the intent to deceive. The Osprey's operational record is being mixed in with its Test and Development record, to arrive at that dishonest statement. To focus on its operational record is a more intelligent way to evaluate the aircraft.
Once again, this technology is new.
Go back to the 1950's when supersonic jets were new, and look at the death and accident rate. You'd see, of course, that supersonic jet aircraft have repeatedly proven themselves to be dangerous and expensive, so we therefore should never have kept them around, but looked for "alternatives" which were ... WHAT?
Gimme a freakin' break.
It was designed to be an assault aircraft, but has been used almost exclusively for transport, and its ability to fly aggressively under duress has not been proven.
Does the person who wrote this understand that "assault helicopters" in Viet Nam were lost in the thousands? They were flown aggressively under duress, eh?
That is yet another attempted argument from a picked cherry, and a deliberate piece of spin.
A 2009 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report stated that the V-22 “can complete missions assigned in low-threat environments, ...”
... but that “challenges may limit its ability to accomplish the full repertoire of missions of the legacy helicopters it is replacing.”
See the Blackhawks of Mogadishu ... oh, wait, maybe helicopters do get shot down in other than low threat environments. F
me, do any of the people who write this crap recall the Frogs falling from the sky due (in part) to crap parts support and the T-58 getting long in the tooth? Mid to late 90's? THAT is the legacy aircraft that the who write and summarize this "report" insinuate "does a better job" at what the Marines want to do. Speaking of legacy aircraft, the Seahawk ran into uncommanded enging shutdowns in the early 90's (T-700's) that cost us at least one SH-60F. Obviously, Seahawks were expensive and dangerous, we should have looked for alternatives ...
oh, and we lost a few SH-60B Seahawks to tail rotor failures ... should have looked for alternatives. Oh, and a few to engine failures ... should have looked for alternatives ...Where were these silly people when Boeing was asking for nine figures to restart the Frog production line? Nowhere to be found, eh?
In other words, despite operations and support costs that have been estimated at $75 billion for the completion of the program, the V-22 is in some ways worse than its predecessors. The GAO concluded that “alternatives should be re-considered.”
More expensive? Yes. Hell yes. That problem is endemic in DoD acquisition thanks to requirements creep leaping into programs with mind numbing regularity.
Now, please tell me, WHAT ALTERNATIVES?
You have already spent the money, you don't get your money back to explore "other alternatives." New program? You'll get your IOC (maybe) in ten years.
Maybe.
And until then, you do what? Toss out your baby with the dirty puddle of bathwater? As presented in that excerpt, the GAO report would have us go back 15 years and go with the all CH-53E (or K, now) program, eh?
Sorry, but there is a thing called opportunity cost that comes with any major decision. The opportunity cost of not going all Stallion is every cent spent on V-22 since then. Too bad, decision made, you can't turn back the clock. (On a side note, at least A-12 got canned before it got out of hand ... )
More BS, thanks Dan.
Really appreciate the FOD in the thread.
From the Forbes Article:
The staffers probably also didn’t realize that for all its technological sophistication, the V-22 is actually the cheapest rotorcraft that the Marines operate when measured in terms of the cost per seat mile.
The reason these facts are not widely known is that arcane warfighting systems like the V-22 seldom get covered in the general media unless something really bad happens, and that usually means either loss of life or a big hike in expected costs. The Osprey has suffered both kinds of setbacks during its history, but not lately so the views many “experts” have of the program are outdated. With production progressing smoothly and few operational problems being encountered, there isn’t much about the V-22 program today that an enterprising reporter can sink his or her teeth into.
The reason these facts are not widely known is that arcane warfighting systems like the V-22 seldom get covered in the general media unless something really bad happens, and that usually means either loss of life or a big hike in expected costs. The Osprey has suffered both kinds of setbacks during its history, but not lately so the views many “experts” have of the program are outdated. With production progressing smoothly and few operational problems being encountered, there isn’t much about the V-22 program today that an enterprising reporter can sink his or her teeth into.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 11th Apr 2011 at 21:27.
Sans,
Mission creep....not at all. The Osprey was billed by the USMC as being a replacement for the CH-53D and CH-46 aircraft. That changed for some reason....ask the Marines to explain the shift.
Mission creep....not at all. The Osprey was billed by the USMC as being a replacement for the CH-53D and CH-46 aircraft. That changed for some reason....ask the Marines to explain the shift.
By Craig Hooper
Defense Tech Naval Warfare Analyst
In a little-noticed deployment shift, deputy commandant for aviation, Lt. General Trautman told Inside the Navy that the 40-year old CH-53D choppers are retiring before their previously reported FY18 and FY19 sundown dates. Fine. But then Trautman used his July 28 interview to quietly change policy, claiming that MV-22s–not Sikorsky’s new heavy-lift CH-53Ks–were going to replace the CH-53D helos!
What’s with that? What does it mean for the Post-Afghanistan Marine Corps?
Ospreys were originally slated to replace CH-53D “medium lift” helicopters, but at some point in 2007–8, the Marine Corps formally decided replace their aging CH-53Ds with CH-53Ks.
Defense Tech Naval Warfare Analyst
In a little-noticed deployment shift, deputy commandant for aviation, Lt. General Trautman told Inside the Navy that the 40-year old CH-53D choppers are retiring before their previously reported FY18 and FY19 sundown dates. Fine. But then Trautman used his July 28 interview to quietly change policy, claiming that MV-22s–not Sikorsky’s new heavy-lift CH-53Ks–were going to replace the CH-53D helos!
What’s with that? What does it mean for the Post-Afghanistan Marine Corps?
Ospreys were originally slated to replace CH-53D “medium lift” helicopters, but at some point in 2007–8, the Marine Corps formally decided replace their aging CH-53Ds with CH-53Ks.
Someone high up the food chain probably got a copy of http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/..._MG649.sum.pdf
right about that time and the USMC began to weigh sustainment for seabasing in the decision to acquire more 53Ks for the 53Ds.
Not a knock on the Osprey (sustainment doesnt stress speed as much as capacity), just a shift in priority. I wouldnt argue the V22 is a good 53D replacement for heavy lift either way.
right about that time and the USMC began to weigh sustainment for seabasing in the decision to acquire more 53Ks for the 53Ds.
Not a knock on the Osprey (sustainment doesnt stress speed as much as capacity), just a shift in priority. I wouldnt argue the V22 is a good 53D replacement for heavy lift either way.