Osprey being deployed [Archive]

nrc

04-14-07, 07:39 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c7/CV-22_Formation.jpeg/800px-CV-22_Formation.jpeg

The Marine Corps announced Friday the V-22 Osprey will see action in Iraq in September when it will be deployed for seven months to help move troops and equipment. Gen. James T. Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, made the announcement in the Pentagon, in what was called a historic move for the Marines.
I can't deny that I'm a bit nervous about this. Two dozen service men with their butts counting on so many mechanical, hydraulic, and electronic gizmos under extreme circumstances is a bit worrisome.

Honestly I think it's a toe in the water. They want to see how the bird performs but another high profile failure would be disasterous. Fingers crossed that all goes well.

Jag_Warrior

04-14-07, 08:51 PM

Hoping for the best. It's an amazing piece of equipment, built in a state of the art facility.

And here's to all of the hard working Bell Black Belts and MBB's who root caused the previous issues and solved them. :thumbup:

Ankf00

04-14-07, 08:59 PM

The CH-46 it's replacing is something like 45 years old too, here's to the continuing replacement of Vietnam-era aircraft. :thumbup:

coolhand

04-14-07, 09:02 PM

nz_climber

04-15-07, 12:34 AM

The CH-46 it's replacing is something like 45 years old too, here's to the continuing replacement of Vietnam-era aircraft. :thumbup:

nothing wrong with vietnam era aircraft, our herc's, orions and hueys down here have been flying for over 40years now

nrc

04-15-07, 01:56 AM

Why be nervous? It's a very complex combination of systems. It helps to know that there's a mechanical linkage that can drive both props from one engine, but that also adds to the complexity and if a transmission packs in the consequences are still dire.

There's no question that recent experience has exposed the shortcomings of the current helicopter fleet, but those losses averaged across millions of operating hours don't look nearly as bad as the Osprey will if (even by pure bad luck) they should have a loss on their first active deployment.

EDwardo

04-15-07, 02:59 AM

And it has only taken about 18 years and $20 billion to get them into service. 2018 is the scheduled date for it's full deployment.

That's only 31 years after the project started.

Between 1989 and 1992, then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney tried to cancel the program because of its high cost.

KLang

04-15-07, 09:00 AM

I'm glad to see the Osprey finally being deployed. I suspect they will be cautious how they are used for a while.

And it has only taken about 18 years and $20 billion to get them into service. 2018 is the scheduled date for it's full deployment.

That's only 31 years after the project started.

That would be pretty much the norm for any new weapons system.

oddlycalm

04-15-07, 04:59 PM

Why be nervous?
- snip -
If one does crash there will be a media firestorm
See, you knew the answer all along. :gomer:

That's aside from the actual people whose lives and careers are on the line of course...

oc

coolhand

04-15-07, 05:18 PM

See, you knew the answer all along. :gomer:

That's aside from the actual people whose lives and careers are on the line of course...

oc

You think they are just putting questionable stuff out there then? I don't think they can afford the bad publicity of doing so. Either way if something bad happens the media will make a controversy of it not matter if it was or was not ready

nrc

04-15-07, 06:53 PM

You think they are just putting questionable stuff out there then? I don't think they can afford the bad publicity of doing so. Either way if something bad happens the media will make a controversy of it not matter if it was or was not ready

I'm sure that they're confident and they've made every effort to field a safe, capable system. But nothing tests a system like combat.

Insomniac

04-15-07, 07:05 PM

You think they are just putting questionable stuff out there then? I don't think they can afford the bad publicity of doing so. Either way if something bad happens the media will make a controversy of it not matter if it was or was not ready

I don't think they are doing that, but do you actually think they're worried about bad publicity from Iraq?

coolhand

04-15-07, 07:14 PM

I don't think they are doing that, but do you actually think they're worried about bad publicity from Iraq?

Yes

Insomniac

04-15-07, 07:23 PM

Yes

Maybe I'm jaded, but if what is being reported by the media now isn't enough bad publicity, I doubt a helicopter crash will be any worse. It will be a headline for a day and then it will be gone.

oddlycalm

04-16-07, 06:19 PM

You think they are just putting questionable stuff out there then? What I think is that it's a complicated aircraft with pilots that, by definition, have logged zero hours under combat conditions.

oc

indyfan31

04-17-07, 12:11 PM

Why be nervous? I trust the people who developed it and I would rather be in one then a Crashhawk or Chithook (which recently had a very deadly crash in A-stan). Helicopters are dangerous and the V-22 is more survivable.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22-survive.htm

It's cruising speed will eventually turn into a lifesaver

While it is an ingenius design, I doubt it will ever replace the need for a helicopter in combat (or any other) situation. And while I also trust the people who developed it, I always keep this in mind:

Military aircraft are designed by people with PhDs, flown by people with BS's, and maintained by people with a High School education. Other than someone shooting at you, that's one reason to "be nervous".

RichK

04-17-07, 01:52 PM

Military aircraft are designed by people with PhDs, flown by people with BS's, and maintained by people with a High School education. Other than someone shooting at you, that's one reason to "be nervous".

Education is highly overrated, IMO. I'd rather have a good racecar mechanic with a HS diploma working as an engineer for me than a seat-warmer with a PhD.

eiregosod

04-17-07, 02:10 PM

While it is an ingenius design, I doubt it will ever replace the need for a helicopter in combat (or any other) situation. And while I also trust the people who developed it, I always keep this in mind:

Military aircraft are designed by people with PhDs, flown by people with BS's, and maintained by people with a High School education. Other than someone shooting at you, that's one reason to "be nervous".

The "D" in PhD does not stand for designer (not that you implied that). PhD's are only fit to conduct research into a specific area. A high tech company is only as good as the technicians.

STD

04-17-07, 04:03 PM

Education is highly overrated, IMO. I'd rather have a good racecar mechanic with a HS diploma working as an engineer for me than a seat-warmer with a PhD.

Agreed.

Practical knowledge and experiences matter the most.
Learning and being able to use that knowledge coherently at whatever level is what is important.

If you can't trust the crew that cares for your craft and yourself, you best not climb in.

Too many times military development is more about a well funded sink hole, with local interests that get pay outs through pork, that develops a machine/system over time that finally works despite the design flaws, and practical use oversights that the brilliant teams of PhD's didn't think out.
When it's too costly to dump... throw more money at it, and finally listen to the feedback from the field on what needs to be done to make the thing work at some level of acceptance.

The examples just in the US military over the years are staggering.

Sorry to be so blunt and to the point, but I grew up around a fully on alert SAC base with nuke loaded B52s on the tarmac 24/7. As well as my dad working on the MX missle project.

Gnam

04-17-07, 04:07 PM

Once they replace the rotor nacelles with fusion plasma ion engines, it'll be super. :gomer:

indyfan31

04-17-07, 06:21 PM

Agreed.

Practical knowledge and experiences matter the most.
Learning and being able to use that knowledge coherently at whatever level is what is important.
That may be true, but the Military doesn't hire helicopter and jet engine mechanics with "knowlege and experience". They take the personnel they can get and mold them into what they need.

(And, I screwed up the quote. I should have started with "designed by people with Master's degrees") The point being that there's a big disconnect between what the designer put on paper and what happens in the field, as I'm sure anyone that's worked on their own car can attest to.

nz_climber

04-18-07, 01:33 AM

Military aircraft are designed by people with PhDs, flown by people with BS's, and maintained by people with a High School education. Other than someone shooting at you, that's one reason to "be nervous".

this statement maybe true, but doesn't reflect knowledge and understanding one bit, aircraft designers don't have a clue about how aircraft work and what needs to happen to keep them flying - thats why commonly changed components on aircraft are buried under other items and impossible to replace!

pilots think they know everything about the aircraft they fly, but in fact know very little about what goes on between the time they go home and when they go flying next.. the maintainers put in hours of work for every hour in the air.. they understand the aircraft a lot more than the designer and the pilot!

That may be true, but the Military doesn't hire helicopter and jet engine mechanics with "knowlege and experience". They take the personnel they can get and mold them into what they need.

The Military TRAIN people into being jet engine/helicopter mechanics and technicians who are experts in what they do and work to the highest standards in the industry.. with experience and skills highly sort after in the civil aircraft and marine industry's

we have this saying..
who is smarter... the bus driver? or the mechanic who fixes the bus?

Ankf00

04-18-07, 01:44 AM

this statement maybe true, but doesn't reflect knowledge and understanding one bit, aircraft designers don't have a clue about how aircraft work and what needs to happen to keep them flying - thats why commonly changed components on aircraft are buried under other items and impossible to replace!

not true with the latest stuff coming out, maintainability and supportability are top considerations. imo, they're stressing it so much that it restricts design.

It may take 8+ hours to replace the boot housing the light on the wing of a decades old C-130, but replacing an engine on a Raptor takes a fraction of the time vs. that of a F-15. (enjoy your vietnam-era aircraft with their excessive maintenance downtime :p)

nrc

04-18-07, 02:32 AM

It may take 8+ hours to replace the boot housing the light on the wing of a decades old C-130, but replacing an engine on a Raptor takes a fraction of the time vs. that of a F-15. (enjoy your vietnam-era aircraft with their excessive maintenance downtime :p)

Sure killed the Tomcat. :(

coolhand

04-18-07, 02:42 AM

not true with the latest stuff coming out, maintainability and supportability are top considerations. imo, they're stressing it so much that it restricts design.

It may take 8+ hours to replace the boot housing the light on the wing of a decades old C-130, but replacing an engine on a Raptor takes a fraction of the time vs. that of a F-15. (enjoy your vietnam-era aircraft with their excessive maintenance downtime :p)

You are right, there is a big emphasis on the consideration of maintenance and software that lets mechanics know what is wrong on planes like the Super Hornet and f-35
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Raptor.html

check this graph out

nz_climber

04-18-07, 05:29 AM

not true with the latest stuff coming out, maintainability and supportability are top considerations. imo, they're stressing it so much that it restricts design.

It may take 8+ hours to replace the boot housing the light on the wing of a decades old C-130, but replacing an engine on a Raptor takes a fraction of the time vs. that of a F-15. (enjoy your vietnam-era aircraft with their excessive maintenance downtime :p)

that is probably true for the new stuff, but I am sure the P3's we fly (just gone 40 years service) are designed to make jobs take longer, like a radar transmitter that barely fits through the door (i sure they put everything inside before they skinned the airplane)

Gnam

04-19-07, 01:21 PM

Having faith in the designers and fabricators is one thing, but what if the government paper pushers buy the wrong aircraft?

CSAR-X competition (http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/532valiw.asp?pg=1)

Boeing HH-47
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1412/csarx2375x300wv5.jpg

Lockheed US101
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/8553/us101kc2.jpg

Sikorsky's H-92
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/3596/img6op3.jpg

STD

04-19-07, 02:58 PM

^ Surely not! That's never happened. :rolleyes: :laugh:

KLang

04-19-07, 03:08 PM

Having faith in the designers and fabricators is one thing, but what if the government paper pushers buy the wrong aircraft?

CSAR-X competition (http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/532valiw.asp?pg=1)

Our tax dollars at work. :shakehead Hopefully sanity will prevail.

It does take a lot of guts to put forward the Chinook as an SAR bird. :laugh:

oddlycalm

04-19-07, 03:43 PM

Having faith in the designers and fabricators is one thing, but what if the government paper pushers buy the wrong aircraft? The paper pushers are told what to do and those behind the scenes that tell them what to do are unlikely to ease up the pressure on a $25 billion order. The real dealmakers are out on the golf course and their fingerprints and names won't appear on any paper.

oc

Andrew Longman

04-19-07, 04:12 PM

The Osprey always seemed very "unmarine-like". They usually like uncomplicated, sturdy, fast, simple stuff. This contraption, even if it works, just seems to cute and clever to be a leatherneck.

Ankf00

04-19-07, 04:16 PM

The Osprey always seemed very "unmarine-like". They usually like uncomplicated, sturdy, fast, simple stuff.

uncomplicated?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/BAE-McDonell-Douglas_AV8B-01.jpg

eiregosod

04-19-07, 06:18 PM

Our tax dollars at work. :shakehead Hopefully sanity will prevail.

It does take a lot of guts to put forward the Chinook as an SAR bird. :laugh:

at $26bn, that's peanuts.

coolhand

04-19-07, 06:45 PM

Twin rotors do make a difference in the alt of Afghanistan and can be faster

it did make me scratch my head when they picked a Ch-47 to replace blakchawks

racermike

05-31-10, 11:47 PM

'Chaos' at Staten Island air show, as helicopter takes down branches, hurts spectators

http://media.silive.com/northshore/photo/img-2441jpg-33ce4c41e3285cfe_medium.jpg

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- As many as 10 spectators suffered minors injuries when the force of a military helicopter's propellers took down tree branches and kicked up dirt and garbage cans during an air show at Clove Lakes Park.
The Osprey Marine chopper descended into the park's main field at about 10 a.m. for an annual demonstration that was part of Fleet Week 2010 festivities.
According to witnesses, what followed was "chaos."
"People were falling over," said Anita Muriale of Castleton Corners. "I ran away as fast as I could. It looked like a tornado. It was unbelievable."
Five to 10 spectators struck with branches or debris suffered minor injuries, with one taken to Richmond University Medical Center, West Brighton. The Marines in the helicopter continued the demonstration.
"It was horrible," said Donna Wolven of Castleton Corners. "Garbage cans were blowing. Everything was lifting off the ground."

-nS-C-xuH-g

Gnam

06-01-10, 11:29 AM

Don't mess with the Thunder Chicken! :gomer:

Ankf00

06-01-10, 01:04 PM

buncha nancies at that airshow :gomer:

BZSetshot

06-01-10, 01:06 PM

Due to Fleet Week NYC they have had V-22s flying around doing what it seems is ferry service from Staten Island to Manhattan. In these runs they were landing at the Downtown Manhattan Heliport in the financial building so I got to see them coming in and out. The prop wash when they are hovering to land is the largest I have ever seen from anything landing here. They are a beauty to watch on landing and take off but I am not surprised about what happened at Staten Island.
http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs542.snc3/29734_1486772934575_1391465697_31271939_3174685_n. jpg
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs522.snc3/29734_1486773054578_1391465697_31271942_4328794_n. jpg