Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

V22 Osprey discussion thread Mk II

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

V22 Osprey discussion thread Mk II

Old 19th Feb 2014, 18:36
  #481 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: here
Posts: 93
another V-22 conspiracy theory

What the Air Force admits is that they were using the ramp-mounted machine gun and firing...backward at targets?? Uhhh, ooooookay...
uhhh, oooookay, you mean like this?




As far as teenagers with RPGs you should quit towing that line. The reality and your strawman version are vastly different.
jeffg is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2014, 00:56
  #482 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
FH, set aside that tinfoil hat, that accident really happened like the report said. If the AF were experimenting with a gunship mod to the Osprey, they wouldn't have crashed doing gunnery training at 300ish feet operating in "helo mode."
busdriver02 is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2014, 12:31
  #483 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
As far as teenagers with RPGs you should quit towing that line. The reality and your strawman version are vastly different.
You are correct Jeff, Fhruitloop's 'pea shooter theory' is as empty as all his other false claims and theories. The word from those who received the Bor CV-22s back after being hit by a deluge of fire and recovering 500 miles was that each received 40-50 rds, much of it 'large caliber' aka 12mm/.50 cal in the belly. Not sure what the damage to the aircraft actually was, but clearly the heavy 'triple redundant systems' onboard the Osprey were worth their weight in gold on this mission. Although still classified as "small arms," here are 12mm and 50 cal "pee shooters" being fired:





Additional Note: The four injured soldiers that were onboard the aircraft were ALL US Navy Seals.
I'm sure they'd have a good idea where to stick FH's pea shooter.
21stCentury is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2014, 12:40
  #484 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: here
Posts: 93
each received 40-50 rds, much of it 'large caliber' aka 12mm/.50 cal in the belly. Not sure what the damage to the aircraft actually was
21st,
I've heard much the same from the V-22 community. I may not know much but I do know this, the HELICOPTER I flew in combat wouldn't have flown a mile much less 500nm if it had received that kind of damage. Heck if it had been hit with 50 rounds of 7.62 I'm not sure how far it would have flown.
But I defer to FH and his prowess in all things related to military aviation and pea shooters.

Last edited by jeffg; 20th Feb 2014 at 20:05.
jeffg is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2014, 13:17
  #485 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,340
Jeffg, that would be like deferring to me and my understanding of neurosurgery.

Osprey looks to be fairly robust.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2014, 20:09
  #486 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: here
Posts: 93
Jeffg, that would be like deferring to me and my understanding of neurosurgery.
So what you're saying is if I need brain surgery you're the man!
jeffg is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2014, 14:01
  #487 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 644
It's funny, really. The V-22 proponents always want to have it both ways. If I say the "rebels" were shooting the V-22's with "small arms," the V-22 apologists immediately claim that the rebels were well-armed with tanks and RPGs.

An actual witness to the fiasco reported in this very thread that, "...Rebels positioned in Bor opened up with Automatics including AKs, PKMs And 23 MM ZSU Guns." (There is no evidence to suggest that these particular "rebels" around Bor have obtained the ZSU-23-4 anti-aircraft tank. If they had such a weapon - and more importantly used it on the V-22's - the outcome would have been far different for those V-22s.)

After-action reports indicate that the V-22s were hit with 40-50 rounds of 12mm/.50 caliber. Now, a .50 caliber round would be considered a "large caliber" but let's admit that it can still be fired from pistol, eh?

Okay, so the largest round to reportedly hit the V-22s was a .50 caliber (12mm). Ergo, this is still small-arms fire.

My statement stands: If even *one* of those rebels had an RPG and knew how to use it, we'd be singing a different song about that mission. Is this not correct? One of you military experts chime in here?

The fact that the defenseless V-22s were able to abort the mission and flee to a recovery point some 500 miles distant is a laughably poor excuse or rationalization for the aircraft. "Well, yes...it did get shot up...and no, it wasn't able to accomplish its mission... But it was able to run away for 500 miles! So there is that advantage!"

Uhhhhhh...

Now, a final word about that ramp-gun. Does anyone seriously think that's a sufficient defensive weapon for a V-22? Does anyone seriously claim that the ability to shoot back where you've already been is important in the success of a mission where the destination is full of hostile "rebels?" Come on. Get real.

If the military is just now announcing that they are considering other, forward-firing weapons for the Osprey, you can bet your bottom dollar that considerable testing has already gone on. We don't know with certainty what the "Eglin" aircraft were doing in their "gunnery" practice at 300 feet and 80 knots. Maybe they were practicing to shoot backward at any "enemies" they had just passed over. But I think that's a rather silly tactic. Don't you?

And look, there will never be an AV-22 gunship. It's too big, heavy and unweildy for that. Admit it, it's no Apache. If anything, there'd be a version similar to the AC-130...but we already have an AC-130. And again, any gun on a V-22 will have problems if they want it to fire forward unless it's in the very vulnerable helicopter mode.

But hey, I'm on board here! I'd prefer that the V-22 get some defensive weapons. That's one of the things we've always been critical of: The utter lack of ability to defend itself. The attempted rescue in Bor drove that point home pretty clearly.

When going into hostile territory, the Osprey is a sitting duck.
FH1100 Pilot is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2014, 17:02
  #488 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 603


here we go again
SansAnhedral is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2014, 18:02
  #489 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: here
Posts: 93
There is no evidence to suggest that these particular "rebels" around Bor have obtained the ZSU-23-4 anti-aircraft tank

No one said they had a ‘ZSU-23-4 anti-aircraft tank’...whatever that is. The ZSU-23 comes in many forms with the Self Propelled Anti Aircraft Weapon Shilka being just one of them. See attached picture below for example of the Toyota mounted ZSU-23 'tank'. But of course with your vast knowledge of all things military you already knew that.



The fact that the defenseless V-22s were able to abort the mission and flee to a recovery point some 500 miles distant is a laughably poor excuse or rationalization for the aircraft. "Well, yes...it did get shot up...and no, it wasn't able to accomplish its mission... But it was able to run away for 500 miles! So there is that advantage!"

Ok. So tell us what would a C-130 have done? A CH-53E?

If the military is just now announcing that they are considering other, forward-firing weapons for the Osprey, you can bet your bottom dollar that considerable testing has already gone on.

Care to offer any evidence? The fact of the matter it has not. But please enlighten us with your background in the military procurement and test and evaluation process.
We don't know with certainty what the "Eglin" aircraft were doing in their "gunnery" practice at 300 feet and 80 knots.

Yes we do. They were doing exactly what they said they were doing. If you have evidence to the contrary please present it.

The one thing we know for certain is that you have no idea what you’re talking about on this subject. Instead of being concerned about the V-22 proponents you should be more concerned that you let an inanimate object get under your skin so.
jeffg is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2014, 18:40
  #490 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,340
Originally Posted by FH1100 Pilot View Post
I The V-22 proponents always want to have it both ways. If I say the "rebels" were shooting the V-22's with "small arms," the V-22 apologists immediately claim that the rebels were well-armed with tanks and RPGs.
No, they don't.
An actual witness to the fiasco reported in this very thread that, "...Rebels positioned in Bor opened up with Automatics including AKs, PKMs And 23 MM ZSU Guns."
Why don't you believe the actual witness?
After-action reports indicate that the V-22s were hit with 40-50 rounds of 12mm/.50 caliber. Now, a .50 caliber round would be considered a "large caliber" but let's admit that it can still be fired from pistol, eh?
FH, that 's a stupid statement, pistol is a red herring. I have fired large caliber pistols. They shoot nothing like the round out of Ma Deuce.
To classify machine gun fire like 7.62 or .50 cal as 'small arms' is valid when using USAF/Joint doctrinal defnitions of anti aircraft fire ... which you don't appear to be doing. You are trying to play games.
Small arms fire, as opposed to artillery, not "small like a pistol" as you insinuate up there.
If even *one* of those rebels had an RPG and knew how to use it, we'd be singing a different song about that mission.
Maybe. Depends on if he's a good shot. RPG's are unguided munitions. You can miss with them, and you can hit with them.

FH, since about 50 years ago in Viet Nam, it has been a very well known problem that slow moving aircraft in the LZ are very susceptible to small arms fire: rifles, machine guns, etc, per above.
A few thousand helicopters went down in Viet Nam.
I will share with you an interesting point learned over there: over 600 fast moving jets went down due to AAA, some of which were from small arms, some of larger caliber (57 mm, for example).
Now, a final word about that ramp-gun. Does anyone seriously think that's a sufficient defensive weapon for a V-22? Does anyone seriously claim that the ability to shoot back where you've already been is important in the success of a mission where the destination is full of hostile "rebels?"
FH, your military tends to fly in two ship, or larger, formations. It isn't too difficult for someone who knows something about the military and its operations to consider tactics that dictate who covers and who hits the LZ, when, and so forth. That said, I am not sold on a ramp gun being the best way to peel that onion. EDIT: I will defer to mcpaves superior understanding and experience on that.
And look, there will never be an AV-22 gunship.
You may be right. I'll provisionally bet the over on you being right. EDIT: that does not foreclose arming the V-22, however. See mcpave's post below mine.
It's too big, heavy and unweildy for that.
Nope. Those are not the reasons for the gunship option being of questionable value.
Admit it, it's no Apache.
Agree completely. It wasn't meant to be.
If anything, there'd be a version similar to the AC-130...but we already have an AC-130.
Not many, and subject to very tight tasking limitations and availability. When I was over on the other side of the world, the AC-130 assets were what is called "low density, high demand." Everyone wanted one overhead, but there were limits on being everywhere at once.
When going into hostile territory, the Osprey is a sitting duck.
See above. When going into and out of an LZ, any rotary wing/hovering aircaft is VERY vulnerable to being hit by ground fire. This problem is not unique to the Osprey.
Your spin and condemnation hurt your case, they don't help it.

Edit: mcpave, thanks for the pointers to those two programs. We learn something new every day.

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 21st Feb 2014 at 18:56.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2014, 18:49
  #491 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 56
The fact that the defenseless V-22s were able to abort the mission and flee to a recovery point some 500 miles distant is a laughably poor excuse or rationalization for the aircraft. "Well, yes...it did get shot up...and no, it wasn't able to accomplish its mission... But it was able to run away for 500 miles! So there is that advantage!"
The decision to abort the NEO had absolutely nothing to do with the CV-22 itself. This NEO was a zero-risk mission, once resistance was encountered, the entire mission was aborted, not just the CV-22 portion. I've planned and conducted NEOs and this is standard doctrine. Why? Because you don't want to place the people you're going in to exfil in harm's way and you don't want to give the enemy a reason to take action against them. NEOs are not combat operations, they are exactly what the term states, "Non-combatant Evacuation Operations". The people you are pulling out are primarily civilians, women, children, etc. The absolute last thing a commander wants is to place them in a crossfire. The fact that personnel aboard the CV-22s were injured made the decision even more important. Your comment that they "ran away" implies that you consider them cowards, a highly disrespectful and uneducated response by you.


Now, a final word about that ramp-gun. Does anyone seriously think that's a sufficient defensive weapon for a V-22? Does anyone seriously claim that the ability to shoot back where you've already been is important in the success of a mission where the destination is full of hostile "rebels?" Come on. Get real.
Ramp-mounted weapons have been standard helicopter armament since the 1960s on a variety of platforms. This configuration is still in use today and will remain so for many years to come on every platform with a ramp, I'm quite positive of that. The ramp gun is actually a much better configuration than side-fire weapons due to the firing azimuth and field of view.

If the military is just now announcing that they are considering other, forward-firing weapons for the Osprey, you can bet your bottom dollar that considerable testing has already gone on. We don't know with certainty what the "Eglin" aircraft were doing in their "gunnery" practice at 300 feet and 80 knots. Maybe they were practicing to shoot backward at any "enemies" they had just passed over. But I think that's a rather silly tactic. Don't you?
Actually I know EXACTLY what they were doing that night. They were conducting gunnery practice that, once again, has been the standard tactic for side-fire and tail-fire helicopter platforms for nearly 50 years now. I've spent hundreds of hours on those very ranges conducting and instructing these very tactics, as well as many other regions of the world.


And look, there will never be an AV-22 gunship. It's too big, heavy and unweildy for that. Admit it, it's no Apache. If anything, there'd be a version similar to the AC-130...but we already have an AC-130. And again, any gun on a V-22 will have problems if they want it to fire forward unless it's in the very vulnerable helicopter mode.
Once again, I know EXACTLY what AFSOC is investigating with respect to arming the CV-22. The problem with this quoted article is that people immediately equate the term "gunship" with the same configuration as the AC-130. A better description would be, an offensively-armed capability for the CV-22. And from recent years there are numerous examples of what could be in store. Do your research on Harvest Hawk and Combat Spear. The use of Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) has been in practice now for about 15 years and has become the "vogue" option on various aircraft, once considered "un-armable" for lack of better term. Truth is there has been zero testing conducted, this is still in the concept development phase, but it is indeed a very high-profile program within the command. I'm confident the V-22 can be armed in this manner, there are several options, it's now a matter of investigating and putting in motion the most effective solution.
mckpave is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2014, 21:35
  #492 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
An Apache or Cobra has the huge disadvantage of having to set off twice as far in time ahead of an Osprey to get to the same place, and not being able to get that far.

If Ospreys are to look after themselves, without requiring F35s to coordinate to depart later and arrive at the same time, then something armed and the same shape as an Osprey might be required.

The Osprey has unique capabilities, that likely will eventually redeem its high cost and apparent sensitivity to careless handling/mechanical abnormalities.
awblain is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2014, 16:43
  #493 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Jeffg, LW, Mcpave,
(and honorable mention to Sans for comedic relief)
Congrats on countering every false claim, exaggeration, and complete distortion of the truth on the most recent FH post by presenting the true facts as has been done repeatedly on this thread. I had a couple of comments I wanted to add, but I feel it would be like kicking a handicapped kid when he was laying on the ground (really!).

FHruitloops,
Get a life... If you want to avoid the repeated embarrassment, post about the things you truly have knowledge about like warming cherries which can be quite interesting (really!).
21stCentury is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2014, 10:24
  #494 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
Marines Train for Long-Distance NEOs in Japan

DVIDS - News - 31st MEU utilizes Osprey?s capabilities during NEO exercise aboard MCAS Iwakuni
21stCentury is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2014, 23:17
  #495 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Hovering, Fast Roping SpecOps Operators, hostile LZ.

RPG Team at Two O'Clock.

AK's at Nine O'Clock.

Gunner Engage!


Nope, I would opt for the three gun configuration like on Helicopters that have ramps.
Boudreaux Bob is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2014, 03:21
  #496 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Morale Problem at the V-22 Shop?


Boudreaux Bob is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 04:37
  #497 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UAE
Posts: 311
LEHMAN: Proving the mettle of the military’s Osprey

LEHMAN: Proving the mettle of the military’s Osprey

The tilt-rotor aircraft has saved lives all over the globe

By John Lehman
Friday, March 28, 2014

Thirty-two years ago, the secretary of the Navy, the commandant of the Marine Corps and chief of naval operations had to decide on a replacement for the old Vietnam-era CH-46 helicopter, the heavy-lift workhorse of Navy fleet replenishment and Marine air assault.
The options were a new twin-rotor such as the Sea Knight, or an entirely new tilt-rotor technology that had been developed and flown by NASA. We established a blue-ribbon panel of the top aeronautical engineers and operators, chaired by Hans Mark, former secretary of the Air Force. The unanimous conclusion of the panel was that the tilt-rotor was the way to go.
It was an aircraft designed specifically for survivability. In combat, on lifesaving search-and-rescue missions, performing humanitarian airlifts or moving troops and equipment, the tilt-rotor could fly faster, higher and further. It took off and landed like a helicopter but cruised at twice the speed of any helicopter. It provided the capability to do many new missions, but most importantly, was much less vulnerable to groundfire and could save thousands of lives in combat. After careful engineering evaluation and risk analysis by the Navy, we committed to the program and the secretary of defense signed the decision document in 1983.
A joint team of contractors from Boeing and Bell was chosen to develop the airplane after Sikorsky showed no interest. A very tight contract was negotiated to develop the aircraft as a team and then to compete each year for production, with the lowest bidder being awarded the larger number and high-priced bidder a smaller number, thus keeping a constant pressure and incentive to improve productivity and reduce cost.
The program proceeded very well until the Bush administration took office in 1989. As part of a sweeping defense review led by the defense bureaucracy, new Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney signed off on its recommendation to de-emphasize naval aviation and to kill all new Navy and Marine aircraft programs except the F-18. Thus, the Osprey was canceled, along with the A-12, A-6F Intruder, F-14D Tomcat, P-8 and ES-3B, leaving the Navy with only one aircraft program for the first time in its history.
Congress, to say the least, was perplexed. After extensive hearings and testimony, Congress directed the continuation of the program now called the V-22 Osprey. There followed then for the remainder of the Bush administration a tragicomedy, in which the Pentagon would kill the Osprey each year, and Congress would direct its resuscitation. Needless to say, this created havoc in the program office and at Boeing and Bell. That mulish behavior by the Pentagon, refusing to accept that Congress has a constitutional right to make such decisions, delayed the Osprey by at least 10 years and more than doubled the price.
Today, after years of distinguished service on a diverse range of missions, the V-22 has earned a stellar safety record and proven its mettle time and again. Never has this been more obvious than during 2013, which truly was the Year of the Osprey.
As a humanitarian asset, the Osprey has become a key element of international relief efforts. Following Typhoon Haiyan, which struck the Philippines last November, V-22s have been carrying supplies and ferrying people to and from remote areas, working 24/7 from both land and sea bases. The news media, Philippine government and nongovernmental organizations have heralded the V-22 as a game-changing asset in around-the clock relief operations.
Rescue and extraction is a key mission for the Osprey, and nowhere has it performed better than in Sudan last December, when three V-22s sent to rescue Americans were subjected to heavy groundfire. The cutting-edge composites and design of this remarkable aircraft ensured its survival. All three Ospreys continued flying, carrying four seriously wounded U.S. troops 500 miles to safety.
V-22s are now strategically placed in key locations to ensure the capability for immediate extraction of individuals serving in harm's way across the Mediterranean, Africa and the Middle East, ensuring that tragedies like Benghazi will not happen again.
Combat was always a primary mission for the V-22, and 2013 has seen Ospreys continuing to perform remarkably in Afghanistan. More operationally efficient than helicopters, the Osprey has more than 200,000 flight hours while executing thousands of missions in harsh environments and terrain, such as Afghanistan. On the home front, because of their unique safety and survivability, V-22s have joined the presidential fleet.
Over the years, the V-22 Osprey has evolved into a game-changing asset that ensures the U.S. succeeds and prevails in the hardest, most challenging missions. Indeed, 2013 saw the V-22 come into its prime, flawlessly performing missions across the globe while serving as a standard-bearer of freedom, projecting U.S. power, compassion and innovation.

John Lehman is a former secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and served as a member of the 9/11 Commission. He has no relationship with any contractor mentioned in this article.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...of-the-osprey/

Note: Lehman was actually Secretary of the Navy under Reagan

Last edited by 21stCentury; 3rd Apr 2014 at 09:45. Reason: Expand Article and add note
21stCentury is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 05:17
  #498 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 644
It is truly amazing, the extent some people will go to try to make the V-22 a success where it is not. Like that former U.S. Secretary of Defense, John Lehman. His little opinion piece in the Washington Times seems so...I dunno...desperate to me. Doesn't it seem desperate to you too? It's like he's trying really, really hard...too hard, I think...to convince us that the Osprey is such a valuable aircraft. That desperation must come from some inside knowledge that the V-22 is still on the verge of cancellation. As it should be. He probably still has good contacts at the Pentagon.

In the article linked, Lehman states:
Rescue and extraction is a key mission for the Osprey, and nowhere has it performed better than in Sudan last December, when three V-22s sent to rescue Americans were subjected to heavy groundfire. The cutting-edge composites and design of this remarkable aircraft ensured its survival. All three Ospreys continued flying, carrying four seriously wounded U.S. troops 500 miles to safety.
Dear God. I nearly fell off my chair when I read that. Is he high? Is Lehman under the influence of psychotropic drugs? Is he on LSD? Is he actually trying to tell us that the FAILED mission to "RESCUE AMERICANS!!!" was actually a...you know...success? Because the very clear implication is that the four seriously wounded U.S. troops were those that the Ospreys were sent to rescue when IN FACT they were already aboard the V-22s which could not land and complete the misson because of that heavy ground-fire.

Come on, John, you can be more honest than that, can't you? Oh wait- no you can't. Because you put forth one other bit of misinformation earlier in your article...
Thirty-two years ago, the secretary of the Navy, the commandant of the Marine Corps and chief of naval operations had to decide on a replacement for the old Vietnam-era CH-46 helicopter, the heavy-lift workhorse of Navy fleet replenishment and Marine air assault.

The options were a new twin-rotor such as the Sea Knight, or an entirely new tilt-rotor technology that had been developed and flown by NASA.
Say whaaaaaat?! I'm sure Bell Helicopter will be pleased to know that all of the work they'd done developing the tilt-rotor concept since 1953 was actually done by NASA. Sure.

The trouble is, people who are unfamiliar with aviation will read Lehman's self-serving, bullsh*t WT piece and take is as gospel. "Well, he's the former Secretary of Defense - he must be telling us the truth!"

Calling that FAILED mission to South Sudan a success really takes the cake. All it proved was that the V-22 can take ground fire and run away fast and far. Heck, a C-130 could've done that. And double-heck, an AC-130 could've returned fire. So maybe it wouldn't have had to run away at all.
FH1100 Pilot is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 11:58
  #499 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
FH,

It is truly amazing, the extent some people will go to try to make the V-22 a success where it is not. Like that former U.S. Secretary of Defense, John Lehman.
It is also amazing how hard some folks try to make the entire Osprey Program into a failure.

One very small problem with your post.

John Lehman was the Secretary of the Navy, not SecDef.

I don't suppose that matters much to you, but it shows a certain lack of accuracy in your research into the Osprey Program.

21st Century and McPave are far more on top of things than you I would suggest.
Boudreaux Bob is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 12:34
  #500 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,340
Originally Posted by FH1100 Pilot View Post
His little opinion piece in the Washington Times seems so...I dunno...desperate to me.
Nope. He's giving voice to something based on actually knowing how the program (which he was of course a supporter of) grew.
The trouble is, people who are unfamiliar with aviation will read Lehman's self-serving, bullsh*t WT piece and take is as gospel.
Lehman has a gift for self serving BS, no question. A politician usually applies that trait. That talent of his has nothing to do with your ax grinding over the V-22. As to Congress trying to keep the aviation industrial base warm ... good thing they did.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.