The V-22 copter-plane hybrid hasn’t had it easy in recent years, as readers of this site are no doubt aware. But Inside the Navy today brings good news to program supporters: Navy testers, at least, think the beleaguered tiltrotor is ready for prime time. (Reuters gets in on the act here, rightly giving credit where it’s due.)
Naval operational testers have recommended declaring the Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey aircraft operationally suitable and effective for military use, meaning it is now up to the Pentagons operational testing directorate to decide whether to endorse the recommendation.…
Last month, the MV-22 finished its operational evaluation, which went quite well, according to Pentagon, naval and industry sources. The official results of the testing have not yet been publicly announced, but Inside the Navy has learned the Navys operational testing command issued a summary report to defense officials June 30.
According to government sources familiar with the report, it recommends declaring the MV-22 operationally suitable and effective and introducing the aircraft to the fleet. The report also cites some deficiencies that must be corrected. For instance, there are issues with certain radios, passenger seat restraints and electronic combat equipment, said a Pentagon source.
The Defense Departments operational testing office has made no final decision yet on whether to declare the MV-22 operationally suitable and effective. But in the Pentagon and among program proponents, it is considered likely that DOD will support such a declaration, based on positive data from the recent testing.
As the story notes, however, Navy testers gave the same thumbs-up back in 2000 — and that turned out to be, well, a bit premature.
THERE’S MORE: Wired does the V-22 story right in its July issue.
And here’s a little something for the kids.
– posted by Dan Dupont
Good Morning Guys,
I know I’m going to cause the Bandani to hit the fan but the question begges to be asked, why do we need the V-22?
For that matter why does the United States need to spend tens of billion of dollars every year maintaining the Marines amphibious capabilities at all?
The last opposed amphibious landing was at Inchon in 1950 if I recall. Since then any seaborn operations have been cermonial events such as the 1965 landings in Vietnam or less then Battalion size. Keeping three ARG’s at sea all the time seems to be legecy of the Cold War that like the “Midgetman” ICBM no longer has any operational need to exist.
The V-22’s only purpose that I can see is that it is a poster child, like the Army’s Comache of how not to develope a weapons platform.
It is time that Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld shows some ba**s again and scrap the V-22 once and for all. To say that the CH-46 needs replacing is obovious but new CH-53’s can do the job and have that needs to be done at a fraction of the cost and with a much better safety record.
To say that the Marine Corps as it is structured today is being redundant of the Army’s “Light Forces” is an understatement. The question of do we or do we not need the Marine Corps. is for another day though. But I see no use in throwing Billions of dollars more into that rat hole called the V-22.
I fired the first shot. So now it’s you turn Marines, have at me. This is the dicussion that not one wants to have but it is the thousand pound gorilla sitting in the room when a dicussion of defense spending comes up.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
“Stewart’s Platoon”
Good Morning Guys,
I know I’m going to cause the Bandani to hit the fan but the question begges to be asked, why do we need the V-22?
For that matter why does the United States need to spend tens of billion of dollars every year maintaining the Marines amphibious capabilities at all?
The last opposed amphibious landing was at Inchon in 1950 if I recall. Since then any seaborn operations have been cermonial events such as the 1965 landings in Vietnam or less then Battalion size. Keeping three ARG’s at sea all the time seems to be legecy of the Cold War that like the “Midgetman” ICBM no longer has any operational need to exist.
The V-22’s only purpose that I can see is that it is a poster child, like the Army’s Comache of how not to develope a weapons platform.
It is time that Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld shows some ba**s again and scrap the V-22 once and for all. To say that the CH-46 needs replacing is obovious but new CH-53’s can do the job and have that needs to be done at a fraction of the cost and with a much better safety record.
To say that the Marine Corps as it is structured today is being redundant of the Army’s “Light Forces” is an understatement. The question of do we or do we not need the Marine Corps. is for another day though. But I see no use in throwing Billions of dollars more into that rat hole called the V-22.
I fired the first shot. So now it’s you turn Marines, have at me. This is the dicussion that not one wants to have but it is the thousand pound gorilla sitting in the room when a dicussion of defense spending comes up.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
“Stewart’s Platoon”
I think it’s a bad idea to go operational. We lose enough people every day in Iraq. The V-22 has claimed over 30 lives in testing. I would rather face a court marshall than get into one of them. I’m in the Air Force. I have a friend that worked on the test program at Edwards. He lost a friend in an accident and hee said it was the worst nightmare of an aircraft he’d ever worked on. This thing has been mired in development hell for way too many years. It’s time to cut our losses and stop trying to fly something that obviously doesn’t want to fly. After all, they killed the Comanche helicopter which was probably a lot better (Yes, I realize one’s a troop carrier and the other is an attack helicopter). If it does go operational, look for the death toll to rise and the lawsuits from family members to come rolling in by the truck loads. Good luck
I actually am a supporter of the V-22. I was lucky to see the test flights of the XV-15 in the 80’s at Tustin Marine Base, we had a personal demo from the test pilots. As to the comments on the Ch-53’s, made earlier. Yes they can do most of the jobs that the V-22 will be able to do. But the Ch-53E has had its share of problems (speaking from experience, as a former Marine working on the 53E program in New River). Lots of people died until the bugs are worked out. And they are still working out bugs 20 years later. Any high performance Aircraft will have problems, people will die. That is the nature of the beast. I dont like to hear about crashes of aircraft, but who said the Military was easy or not dangerous. But the V-22 has to potential to be a superb military aircraft, and it will lead the way for civil models to follow. Bell and Boeing, keep up the great work.
We lost plenty of Harriers in the late 70’s and early 80’s, while the bugs were worked out of the aircraft. I believe the Osprey program will follow a similiar road. The capabilities of the Osprey are well beyond what we now have in the Chinook and Sea knight. The aircraft will eventually save many lives.
I think as a platform it has great potential in Search and Rescue, Drug interdiction and Border Patrol, outside of direct military application.
Anyone who thinks that the CH-53 is has even close to the same qualities is wrong. The V-22 is faster, has better range, and has one of the best qualities of all… speed. Speed is the difference between life and death. The V-22 will be able to get our troops to the hot spots faster and with less exposure than any other platform out there. It will also allow us to get wounded troops much faster to the the medical aid they need as well as provide a more stable environment for interim care. Overall is a step forward. Why keep working with technology that is now becoming dated… the V-22 is the future, here now.
I believe the V-22 is a waste and a deathtrap. I may be a retired door gunner, but even I wonder where is the defensive weapons? When it comes in VTOL, it is vunerable and all personel on board are a target. Is someone making money at the cost of GI’s lives? The money can be used better on existing rotary aircraft and give our guys and gals a chance to live getting into and out of a hot LZ.
THE IDEA OF A HELICOPTER/PLANE HYBRID INTRIGUES ME. IT IS JUST A CRYING SHAME THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SO MANY BUGS FOR SO MANY YEARS. I SEE THE CRAFT PUT TO GOOD USE IN CIVILIAN LIFE AS AN AIR AMBULANCE AND IN FIRE FIGHTING AGAINST FOREST FIRES. HAVE A GOOD DAY.
As a former CH-46 pilot, I have to say that the Osprey is long overdue. Even with the over-hyped problems, I’d take it any day. To say that the CH-46 needs replacing is an understatement of the highest degree. Virtually the entire fleet is flying beyond its design life of 10,000 hours, so every flight is a crapshoot, waiting for something to fail.
First off, (Mr. Skinner) the amphibious capabilities of the Marines are not limited to landings. The doctrine has changed with the times. You should do some research on Operational Maneuver From The Sea and Seabasing. Bottom line we can still get places faster than the Army.
The Osprey is too delicate for use in combat. There is a narrow window in which it can transition safely from prop to rotor flight. There are no defensive weapons, in fact no windows at all to even put them in. This is also bad for embarked troops who can gain useful reconaissance from their flight over an area, and ensure they are at the right LZ before exiting. Someone said speed is a great advantage. Unfortunately, it is too fast to be escorted by Cobras, and too slow to be escorted by Hornets or Harriers. This is a huge downfall. This thing will be pushed into service because the Corps has put all its eggs into the Osprey basket. I think the aircraft would be a great deal more useful to the civilian sector, where it won’t have to perform to combat standards.
The V-22 is what they like to call transformational these days. It takes the whole concept of operational maneuver to another level. Certainly there have been tradeoffs (like the size, as it had to fit into the same space as a CH-53). Also, it really should have a nose turret gun and window and/or ramp guns.
What is really needed is an attack version of the V-22. Bell/Boeing should do what Bell did when they stripped down and buffed up the UH-1 to make the AH-1. It would make a very powerful attack craft, on par with the A-10 (though somewhat slower), and would be the perfect escort for waves of Marines going over the horizon in V-22s.
Re: Defensive weapons. The currently produced Block-A MV22 have no defensive capability (other than countermeasures), and are designated for training only. The Block-B units are supposed to have defensive armament.
We are sale different sorts of UGG products.We supplied the best service and cheap price. Welcome to http://www.lastestugg.com/.