Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) is one of the biggest defenders of the V-22, which the Pentagon decided to buy last week.
Makes sense; he’s got a Boeing plant in his district that stands to gain lots of work and jobs building V-22s.
After the Pentagon announced its decision, Weldon had this to say about the program’s many detractors:
This is total vindication from all of the critics who had taken cheap shots at the V-22 project over the years.
Cheap shots like this?
If the V-22 was unaffordable in 1989, it is even more unaffordable now.
That was Dick Cheney, in 1992 — three years after he killed the V-22 as defense secretary. Congress kept it alive.
Weldon, of course, knows a little about cheap shots. In 1999, he said repeatedly — on the House floor and elsewhere — that the Clinton administration “leaked the design for our W87 warhead to U.S. News & World Report. Not just the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Iraqis and Iranians, anyone who would buy U.S. News & World Report on July 31, 1995 got a documented diagram of the W87, which up until that point in time was classified.“
He even got specific: “Hazel O’Leary leaked the plans … for the W87 nuclear warhead.“
Hazel O’Leary was the Energy Secretary at the time. And she did nothing of the sort, as the Federation of American Scientists’ Steve Aftergood has documented. (Also see here.)
– posted by Dan Dupont
{ 66 comments… read them below or add one }
Why is that I come here expecting to read about DEFENSE TECH and get a load of politics every time. You seem to have many axes to grind, do us a favor and change the name to:
My politics with Defense stuff thrown in!
You went from V22 to W87 in one breath. How is that informative? Are you trying to impress us with your Google ability?
I agree with David. Either focus on “Defense Tech” or change the name of your column. If you have political gripes then use a proper forum!!
Do you two -live- in Washington?
Defense technology and politics are inextricable.
Is this the same Dick who ordered the chopping up of the F-14 jigs…..s m a r t
Hey, any publicity that helps kill the V-22 is good! (Even though it looks unkillable now…)
Look out for some spectacular landing-zone and LHA deck-ops accidents, everybody! What a nightmare.
Curt Weldon is the best thing that has happened the US to help wake up Washington DC naysayers. The V22 is a special piece of Military hardware. Just like other hardware before it had to be field tested. And sometimes somebody looses his or her life in doing so.
The Osprey is a good idea. But, I do not think that our current technology will make it work safely. Has anyone out there seen any old clips of VietNam combat insertions? They were basically controlled crashes, designed to get the troops on the ground as quickly as possible and get the choppers out in one piece. Does anyone seriously suggest that the Osprey can do the same? The transition zone is where it is most vulnerable, both from a mechanical and from a target standpoint.
A good idea, but one that I do not think will work without taking a lot of lives.
And, yes, politics and technology are nearly inseperable in Washington, DC.
As a former Marine, I’m glad I never had to ride in one of those V-22 death traps. I pray for future Marines who will have to ride in it. It’s technology that is too costly (money and lives)and way too dangerous.
OK ladies…how many of you remember what they said about the first Hueys back in the late 40′s? Samething with the V-22, once ya build and fly a bunch of ‘em and work out the bugs, you start to generate fixes and this leads to second and third generations. All advancements in technology requires some kind of sacrifice in one way or another. The Osprey deserves a chance to prove its self.
I once work on Russian ZSU -23′s & did simulated combat test against our equipment. I then learned the fact that all helicopters are simply “Duck Season”, ~~ meaning easy targets. Now as I see the V-22, I have to say the same, “What a target, What an easy shot”. We even did sims with shoulder missile & I lock/fired on one in 2 sec. Understand.
I said it once and I’ll say it again! That thing is going to kill! It is unfortunate it will be the good guys going down! Those on the ground will get the movie star trim, as Vic Morrow from the TV series “COMBAT!” Those blades will dice you into a million pieces! And the good Congressperson will get his new job working for boeing boeing! That is the sound of them landing!
Such a waste, that is why somebody should do something. I wrote my people in Wasteington! Don’t try Durbin, he hasn’t a clue.
The negative opinions are normal.The same happend whit helikopters in the beginning, all of this is the same.V-22 is something tottaly new and people need to get used to.Some faster than the others.Stay believing in technology it will keep things running.
Regards Jorik
This is a bittersweet issue. I, like other Marine pilots, were scheduled to fly the MV-22. I decided to leave the military. One of my good buddies did not. On a test flight his MV-22 crashed. He along with his crew were killed. If the aircraft stays it could kill more. If it gets canceled his death and the many others who flew it during the operational testing phases will be meaningless.
Is it true that the V-22 program had to be split among numerous states in order for Congress to vote favorably for R&D on a much needed program to replace the aging helicopter fleet?
If true, do you think that this division of development across many states has added to the COST, impediment of COMMUNICATION between V-22 departments, and, as a result, cost the loss of LIVES, unnecessarily?
Again if true, have our political leaders acted in the best interest of the people and the nation? Do they ever?
Heres my solution. We, the people/taxpayers, OWN the rights to the V-22 … BECAUSE WE PAID FOR IT! And NOT Bell or Boeing. We commandeer all of the plans and materials and deliver them to the Japanese for R&D. Within two years well have a working model, itll be cheaper on gas, built with higher quality, will last forever as long as you change the oil & oil filter regularly, and will have a higher resale value after many years of its life.
The solution is just too practical. The military complex machine will squash it before this solution could ever be introduced. The numbskull politicos havent a clue … about anything.
One Patriot
With the V-22 all I gotta say is the Blackhawk.. We have had more Blackhawks go down than any other helicopter in the fleet.. Why not crash that Because they are tactical to gettin mroe troops in than anyother helicopter we own. With few exceptions.. Now with the V-22 it is brand new.. Nothing works on the first time out. Give the Osprey a chance.. and It will work.. Come on what other Aircraft can run off ONE engine
Who ever said that the Vietnam helicopter insertions (Huey’s) were controlled crashes, has never seen a seasoned “Slick Driver” do his thing. As a AHIG Cobra “Snake Jock”, my rspect went to Slick Drivers. The V22 is a Widow Maker, not perfected to it’s maximun potential because of government budget and BS. Bell Textron has been trying to perfect this thing for a long, long time (check it’s history). I’m a Senior System Safety Engineer and I have turned down the V-22 safety position several times. No thanks.
Addendum:
Plus, the Japanese version will be inexpensive. Or shall we say, taxpayer-friendly.
Remember … that the replacement for helicopters had to have over-the-horizon capability. Newer helicopters can not, will not provide that. Newer technology had to be developed for that capability.
One Patriot
As a former USMC CH53E pilot, I have watched the development of the V-22. The idea is appealing, but the reality is that in the transition mode, it is the best target on the battle field. This is an example of the need for term limits. If Rep. Weldon had been term limited, this joke would have stayed where VP Cheney left it….terminated!
20 Years ago I wanted to be a test pilot for the V-22 I was already a test pilot for the Blackhawk. The V-22 has a problem with out a fix plus you can buy 10 Blackhawks for the price of one V-22 and get 5 times the work done. Good concept bad way of doing it. Most Blackhawks were crashed by hot dogs V-22 are crashing with out hot dogs. I see positive comments coming from people that don’t have a clue and negative ones from former pilots that are afraid of this thing.
The need to move men, machines, food and other military or humanitary aid can be satisfied by the machines we have. The cost of one V22 and support could be better spent maintaining and improving the designs and machines already in the field. The proven design and function combined with the parts and personal to service the machinery already exists. The need for new designs is not real but superficial. Politicians feeding the defecit to the benefit of their agendas. Let’s spend money on information that can negate the superficial need. Our strategic military advantage will not benefit from throwing dollars into a real life paper shredder.
Of course, the Japanese version will only carry four adults with their combat equipment, or seven without… :)
Get the bugs out of the V22 before releasing it for combat use. Any helicopter is trickey to fly has has quirks that need to be mastered before it will be workable in the field.
The only new design aircraft that was close to perfect was the SR 71.
Good luck to the Marines with this one.
V22 is the next logical step and if we don’t seriously invest the time and the money, it will remain a death trap and someone else will develop the technology and leave us behind. It isn’t perfect, but its a start. Maybe we order fewer and equip Rapid Deployment or Special Forces units in the beginning to test the theories with the people who could most benefit.
VSTOl aircraft also had its “issues” but the British wouldn’t of stood a chance in the Falklands if they didn’t have them.
Here is an article from last year which explains why this is dangerous. Why the V-22 is unsafe.
http://www.g2mil.com/V-22safety.htm
Hey, it’s a really big helocopter with short blades. I bet it’s vertical lift is less then a helocopter, and it’s horizontal speed is slower then a C-130. Nothing quite like making a hybrid that does neither job very well. Only congress has the power defy the laws of physics. It says so in the U.S. Constitution.
Please explain how this article presents informative background on the evolution of the V22 program, which has led to Pentagon acceptance. In other words, how is this “responsible reporting” which aids a citizen in sucessfully gaining accountability from our government that justifies “special protections” for reporters, such as refusal to testify to a grand jury?
Along the same lines, what “public good” have you re-enforced with your W87 nuclear warhead comments?
If History is meant to serve as a guide, please look up “Watergate,” where reporters broke the law to make the public aware of a crime at the highest levels of government. As for immediate suggestions for improvement, please paste the headline of this article “Cheap Shots” above the mirror that the “Defense Tech” writers and editors use, until such a time when journalistic integrity returns.
v/r
Jens Parks
Those who are saying the the Osprey needs more testing need to check the hitory of this beast. It has been tested to death (pun intended). Throughout the many years of testing and modifications it has failed repeatedly and killed people. The benefits do not hold up against the risks and costs. It was killed once and should have remained dead and buried.
Seems to me like all the people who support this thing have absolutely nothing to back up what they say. Everyone who is opposed to the whole idea is either a pilot, or an engineer, or a Marine, or someone else experienced or like the one guy posts a link to an article. Scrap this project and move on. And change the name of this article/blog to political bitching and whining. I am an 18 year old college kid and I learned absolutely nothing about the Osprey that I didn’t already know. How can you possibly define this as “Defense Tech”?
I WAS FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO SEE THE V-22 UP CLOSE WHEN I WAS ON ACTIVE DUTTY;I MUST SAY IS A MAGNIFICENT MACHINE THAT I HOPE IS DOES GO INTO PRODUCTION AND REPLACE THE AGING WORK HORSE OF THE MARINE TROOP CARRIER CH-46.LIKE ANY NEW EQUIPMENT YOU STILL HAVE TO WORKOUT THE KINKS,EVENTUALLY EVRY THING WILL WORK OUT.
The battlefield is a city block and the battle is being fought door to door. You can’t even land a V-22 there. The aircraft we have now will work in this environment for a long time to come. I know this as an army aviator who has been there. Let’s use the money to supply our soldiers on the ground with better equipment at a minimal cost of one V-22 and let the poor unemployed boeing/bell workers get a real job…by enlisting.
V-22 can be perfected and put to an useful end in active service…. then sent to the desert for storage untill they are scrapped. Reason, cost too much money to maintain and parts wear out too soon! Remember the F-111?
Congress won’t keep the program funded. They’ll first say we’ll pay for 400. Then a year later, they’l say we only need 250. Then it will drop to 175. The after twenty years they’ll scrap them. Too expensive to build and too costly keep in use! So let’s just keep reading about the political/defence tech information articles to see if we can get any background technical information.
I worked at Boeing for 18 years, and the V22 is anything except new. It has 20 year old technology and suffered from two fatal crashes early on in the testing program. The developement cost will be incredible, but it should be a great machine for the military.
The V22 program is the same as one I was involved with the Army truck program FMTV. Never mind quality. If you whip a bad product long and hard enough, forget the price paid. The Government will buy it anyway. They will get more money to fix the problems later.
The first jets took years to profect, the first jet was the german ME262 that had a experimental tail dragger style in 1938/1939, they flew, but the problem they had was you had to use the throttle delicaly, too much fuel youll catch the engines on fire, too little fuel and they burn out. Now lets fast track to what i belive to be the first good jet fighter the F86 sabre they came out in the very late 40`s very early 50`s, with any technological advance in military weapons be it air or land vehicles, it takes time to profect, yea the V22 sounds promising but when it comes down to it, you have to test the product then make a change, then test again. Look at cars, it wasnt till 1967 that seat belts were made manditory, and 1966 when a double latch door latch was used on vehicles, wasnt till 1966 that padded dashboards were standard, My point is it takes trial and error to profect anything new or old.
Civilian leadership of the military is a must, so as to maintain our nation as one where the Protectors never become the Dictators.
~ HOWEVER… ~
However, there is far too much meddling on the part of *civilian* leaders (especially when it means “pork” and perks) in some of the affairs of the military.
This situation with the V-22 — an aircraft whose service record is about as appealing as a hockey player’s smile — is a perfect example of the corruption in Congress, and of how damaging the meddling of corrupt leaders can be.
This is as if my current employer were to try to decide that I (and my little girls) would only be allowed to drive to work in a Ford Pinto, instead of something with a much better safety record, gas mileage and approval by the actual people who have used them!
Congress: DON’T CONDEMN OUR TROOPS TO DEATH *BEFORE* THEY GET TO THE BATTLEFIELD!
The V-22 has been in development for well over 20 years and is still there. What other airframe has been in development for so long and produced no results (except for kiling scores of Marines and test pilots)?
This thing carries less weight at a higher cost than a CH-46. Cost benefit on this one equation is negative.
About those big hulking engines on the ends of the wings… If I were a bad guy, I’d be aiming for those. And I’d probably hit them using the old Mk I Eyeball. May as well paint big old bullseyes on the outside of them.
Scrap these deathtrap money pits and buy some US101s.
Matt
If and I say IF . . . the V22 is so bad and that hasen’t been really proven yet. But if that is in fact the turn of events, Boeing and the US can kill several birds with one shot. Sell the damned thing to our enemies, we get their money and kill at the same time without firing a shot.
Wake up fools, new technology of any kind creates certain risks as well as eventual benefits. Instead of whining about wether or nt the V22 is any good, complain to your congressmen about the cost of gas . . . . a worthwhile venture.
Unstable? crashed repeatedly during testing? Widowmaker? Sounds a lot like you are talking about the F-117 and not the V-22. How did that F-117 turn out anyway? Were they ever able to work out the bugs? I know the problems with the F-117 were a lot more formidable than the ones with the V-22
Once again, its our money that gets wasted on a 10 year old POS. I guess it’ll take many accidents and deaths to reconsider this waste of expenses. But wait………..why can’t we scrap this hunk ‘o junk and spend the money to properly equip our troops in theater. That would make too much sense!!
The osprey is a serious pork barrel death trap. It reminds me of the M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, it was designed to replace the m113 APC because the 113 couldn’t keep up with the M1 Abrams tank. The bradley underwent many, many useless modifications and in the end, couldn’t come close to holding the equipment and personnel that the 113 could. It could keep up though, but once it got hit, it would blow into smithereens! Then they bolted on more armor, increased the weight, etc.. and so on and now it’s a bloated death trap. The v22 does not make sense, there is no use for it all, like the b1 bomber! If I was a marine and they told me to get on one of these, I’d refuse instantly.
I believe it was in the 1980′s when the Japanese trade minister to the US said, “If you build it, we will buy it, if you don’t we will sell it to you.” It was entered into the Congressional Record… (probably by Curt Weldon).
This aircraft has a tremendous ability to inpact aviation for many years to come. Particularly in the island nations around the world. It is evolutionary… not revolutionary.
Have any of you ever looked at the accident records, particularly in early development, of some of Americas most historic aircraft. Just take a look at the F4-U Corsair. It was so bad when first introduced to the fleet in WWII the Navy said it would never safely operate from a carrier…
This airplane can cruise at more than 250 knots and will routinely carry payloads greater than 10,000 pounds. It flies like a dream and is no more vulnerable than a CH-53 during transition for landing. As I recall the CH-53 survived its’ introduction to Vietnam combat, but even then they altered tactics to suit the environment.
This aircraft will dictate new tactics, not only to minimize vulnerabilities, but more importantly to capitalize on capabilities. It will also require changes to the way we train pilots which the military is already adressing. In many ways it is similar to the transition from prop to jets in the 40′s and 50′s.
In more than 30 years as a Marine Aviator, I flew over 6000 hours in helicopters and turbo-props. The V-22 will not replace helicopters or turboprops… it will compliment them and introduce capabilities long needed.
It is unfortunate that most of these comments that have been made are by people that have not seen it fly. If I was wounded on a battlefield and needed medical evacuation, I certainly would want something faster than a Blackhawk. I would want the V-22 to be my ride.
The Ospreys are no longer death traps, all the problems have been fixed that have occured in early field testing, they’re as safe as a C130
At Rucker in ’55 -’57 this was a dream design and discussion.That’s all they talked about; ‘Vertical to horizontal and we’ll have the “Blue suiters by the balls!”
When I retired in the Jersey area and boated along the Delaware river I used to see the Boeing people playing their games and banging their toys up. I even saw one dumped in the river in either the late seventies or early eighties.
Just how many of those things crashed and how many troops were killed? When we troop tested the H-37, and had to land every 2 hours to add 5 gals of oil to each engine they said itwas unsafeand never came into the inventory and that was in ’56.
I don’t recall any fatalities with the 37.
It depends on who wants what and has the most pull! An the needs of the troops and NOT THE FIRST THING THAT COUNTS!
I wasn’t a rated pilot, but was with the 351st RCT, later the 99th BCT, as troops at Rucker and we did some of the troop testing and demonstrating of ‘vertical assault’ [as they called then]using the H-19,H21,H34 and H37.I and members of my Platoon were involved in 2 crashes during these trainging exercises, one in and H-19 the other an H-34, both involving casualties.
A Lt. Dennis O. Butterfield and I mentioned at an Aviation Board conference that we’d like to try to put .30 cal MG’s on free T&E bars in the doors of the H-21 to use for supressive fires on the approach to an LZ since the approaches were in “file”. We were laughed out of the conference.
A FEW YEARS LATER IN APPROACH TO AN LZ IN ‘NAM GUESS WHAT?
I have been tenitivally following the developement of the V-22 for years now. it is a truely promising peice of equipment.
No, it does not replace the helicopter, No it does not replace the C-130. it does, however, compliment Both. it has better lifting capibility, speed and range then egg-beaters, AND be able to land in more places than the C-130.
the redundant cross rotor connection to be able to run both props off of one engine is a wonderful safty design.
Is this aircraft without flaw? No. is there room for improvment? Yes. should it be scrapped? Hell No. Hav Blue spent nearly 20 years in development and look at the plane we got from it? F-117 wobbly-goblin, B-2 flying wing, F-22 Raptor (designed in my own home town of Marietta, Georgia).
Should we bring the Japs in on it? Sure, I would like to see what they could do with it, but we should not wash our hands of it.
just to give you an idea of what possible OTHER uses this aircraft might have read HAMMERHEADS by Dale Brown.
I am a Navy Brat. my father, grand father, great grand father we’re all in the navy… My brother? He went into the Marine Corps.
I am the only male in my familly other than my son that has not been personally involved with a war since WWI. if it was within my powers to choose, I’d rather send my brother into combat riding the V-22 than in the bradely fighting vehical (renamed the Zippo, lights off first time every time it’s hit)
I have been around and seen V-22 prototypes from at least the mid 70′s. The technology has not been proven in 30 years, Troops need reliable, safe and effective equipment, and the V22 fails on two out of three.
Read the reports here from guys with thousand of hours in stick time, these guys would love to have an aircraft that flies at 400 knots and lands safely at 0 knots. The V-22 should be scrapped. The idea should not be. I would think that the experience with the AV-8B which will carry nearly as much payload as a V22 would lead a thinking man back to the concept of a ducted jet. Throw away outdated blades and tilt rotor design and use ducted jets. Improvements in material and engineering since the harrier was designed leads me to believe that a combat transport vstol version of a ducted jet would be far simpler and cheaper than the V22.
Hey thats great, relatives in war. Me too, but that has no bearing on the V-22. By the time is comes out its technology will already being ancient. This is a purely political buy in my opinion and will kill way too many before it gets working properly. But hey, anyone ever see the history of the bradley? Regardless to say, I wouldn’t get within 100 yards of one of those flying deathtraps.
I am not an engineer or a pilot. I am just an Ole retired Martine “Top” Master Sergeant (Force Recon/Airborne) who has flown in,jumped out of,repeled out of, and Hung while in flight on a 90 foot rope under,(SPIE Rig)most aircraft in our arsenal. I read a lot,listen to those that do have the knowledge and mix that up with my experience and some common sense and come up with my conclusions. Yes all new concept aircraft have their growing problems, lives are lost, and they take time to perfect—if they can ever be perfected. The V-22 has been in R & D for 20 years, which tells you right there they have a lot of OLD technology in them and there are some serious problems with their basic design. All helicopers have always been waiting to fall out of the sky since they left the factory and began to viberate themselves apart. All of them are inheriently unsafe and they ARE the BEST TARGETS in existence. Most of you probably don’t even know about the scandal of several years ago when high ranking officers and civilians falsifed the test results, maintenance,and performance of the V-22. During this period one of the four (4) fatal crashes I know of (I am sure there were more fatal/non-fatal)cost the lives of the entire crew and 24 Marine grunts. The powers that be were ignorant enough to put a full contengent of troops in a falty unproven almost flying machine that had crashed several times prior. Also over the years of testing, most if not all, of the original requirements by the military for the V-22 were dropped or softened to the point of making it useless. I can’t remember them all, its a one brain cell thing.It has no weapons of self defense from ground fire or air protection such as most of our helos have, like door mounted M-60s or miniguns or missles or anything. You cannot repel/fastrope from it,(the downwash is insane)it cannot hover but a short time and has to hover higher than a normal helo. It simply cannot do the things it was designed to do originally so what good is it. And it is a HUGE, Heavy,EXPENSIVE,and SLOW target with no armor of any kind. I have read a lot of positive opinions about the V-22 from what sounded like people who had not a clue as to the real facts, and watch too much TV and adventure movies. You people better listen to those that know which side of the toilet paper is clean after use—and that is 98% of the pilots who have commented in the negative on the V-22, and the engineers. It is a death trap that is way more expensive than the most costly coffin at a rip off undertakers parlor. I fear/know we will be filling a lot more coffins if we persist in the production of this boondogle. Lets cut our loses and move on to something that has already proven itself or design something that is realistic and usefull. Too much of the positive reports on the V-22 are from high ranking military and civilians (who are high ranking ex-military) who have nothing but their careers and bank accounts as their priority. They have bull headedly plowed ahead blindly, afraid to admitt they made a mistake and chance the ruination of their careers. They have no concept of our Marine motto of “Semper Fi” (always faithful)to our troops, and that is the biggest sin you can committ from my point of aim.
Semper Fi (Always Faithful
Fratres Aeterni (Brothers Forever)
“Top” R. Plumlee, Sr.
Master Sergeant of Marines/Airborne (Retired)
Still Lean, Mean, And Always A Marine!
ron@fortplumlee.com
The V22 could be the best delivery system ever thought of, if goverment greed was not envloved and it was simplified, maybe with 2 cross drive engines fixed in body with drive shafts through fixed stub wings to 2-5 blade max thrust fixed pitch Ducted fan pods that rotate 120′ with a twist L handel to control main RPM, angle fore and aft on both or indivual pods and thumb wheel to control slight differance in RPM port/stbd
I think the pilot and engineering assessments are correct. The beast is flawed. However, it is not the first to come into the inventory “bent”.
The F105 was called “thud” for a reason. The F100 was a “widow maker”.
The AV8 Harrier was very hard on test pilots and then Marine pilots until the Corps changed the pilot requirements to experienced only need apply.
The H60s had a tail rotor shaft problem and a ‘radio interference’ problem with the fly-by-wire flight control system. Now, they are the mainstay of force helicopter deployment. Except for the Marine Corps, who still use CH46s and UH1Ns older than the guys working on them and flying them. My youngest son was one such mech with HMLA 267.
How about the Bradley. A fine example of throwing enough money at a flawed concept to get to work.
On and on. Money will be thrown at the V22 and it will work, tactics will be developed to minimize the deficiencies. It may not ever be the first in over the horizon transport, but may end up being an intra-theater staging transport with the CH46 and UH1Ns still doing the final assault role.
Remember, the C130 is still in service. Remember the advertizing on the C17 being a potential C130 do it all replacement? How many pilots want to put a C17 where they can a C130?
IThe downwind landing syndrome for that bird is a real killer. That issue has killed more of the pilots than anything else, thus far. That’s what killed the 19 Marines awhile back.
don’t see the V22 being the first in ship, except in black ops, where the insertion is not opposed. Or, as a prime mover from ship to staging. As an assault ship–a fool’s paradise where putting the troops down is concerned. As a gunship, a mini-AC130, maybe.
I work for one of the contractors on the V-22. If this project does not succeed, my company loses big money, and I and many of my co-workers may be looking for new employment. That said, the V-22 is a fantastic concept, poorly executed. The flight envelope envisioned for this aircraft is achievable, but it will take major redesign to accomplish it. The ducted fan concept in my opinion holds a lot of merit. I am sure there will be much more money thrown at this aircraft before it either dies or succeeds brilliantly.
Remember the Harrier? We first approached it with the flying techniques of another aircraft and had big trouble. But now, with development of the equipment and the people who design it, I suggest that today it is a proven concept.
Why not take up the challenge on V22. Only that way will we see how useful it really might be.
It’s interesting. I see a lot more negative comments about the V222 here than comments for it. I guess time will tell. I know there are a lot of people in the military who are actually excited about this new system. I think more vertical take off and landing aircraft will be developed. It’s funny that no one has mentioned the smaller, unmanned VTOL aircraft based on this technology and also developed by Bell/Textron. This thing can be launched from almost anywhere. I think the V22 is just the forerunner of a generation of VTOL aircraft.
I’m a UH-60 pilot out of Fort Hood. I would love to fly an aircraft that can lift almost as much as a chinook, fly faster than any helicopter(240 kts, compared to the chinook’s 170), and have a greater range than any helicopter (check out http://www.fas.org). About that ducted fan idea. Propellers are used because of something called aerodynamic efficiency. Same reason why all helicopter use a giant propeller. It’s just more fuel efficient to use a propeller than a jet (i.e. harriers have terrible fuel efficiency at a hover).
It’s an amazing airframe. Give it a chance.
The MV-22/CV-22 is like any other new technology which takes time to “season”. Unfortunately, testing aircraft is risky. This is understood by everyone who is involved. This aircraft has been up to 280 knots, 28,000 ft, been shot up, and tested in every situation imaginable. Almost Everyone who has been in the aircraft knows this will fly higher, faster, and farther then any other helicopter, and since the thousands of hours of testing since redesign, it is safer!
Fastrope, externals, SPIES rigging, Hoisting, can all be performed with consideration for the downwash. Hey, been there done that with the V-22 and I can tell you from experience that this is much better then flying aircraft that are so limited you need 10 to perform one mission for the V-22! Testing an aircraft today is very political and every gnats asss is inspected and reported. How much bad press was reported about aircraft in testing 20 years ago? Give it a chance….and realize that that old workhorse you flew years ago cant hold a candle to this one.
This aircraft looks rubish and sounds crap, it looks nothing like the chinook for military ops, send it back to where it came from and stick with a transport helicopter that does the job properly.
The V22 would need alot of modifications to make it safer etc
At the moment it looks a safari aerial tour helicopter, maybe it needs a camo paint job and a weapons response system.
This is scary. You seem to be willing to suffers losses of life to promote the V-22. Your reasoning is very weak. How about a safe aircraft to start and improve from there. Sometimes I’m glad I retired after seeing what your willing to expose troops too today.
For all of you out there Half of the funding for the V22 was misappropriated. The cost should have been significantly reduced. In the future building of theses machines I know we will see the cost reductions.
Please explain how this article presents informative background on the evolution of the V22 program, which has led to Pentagon acceptance. In other words, how is this “responsible reporting”
The reporter showed that the congressman was not consistent in his statements. That he was consistently a voice of special interest groups. One group that didn’t like Clinton, another group that wanted armaments profits.
Here is the latest. Very,very bad
http://www.g2mil.com/Duma.htm
It should be noted that the linked “article” at g2mil.com referenced in the 6 December 2005 post by Tom Carny contains fabricated “testimony” by David Duma. If one carefully reads the piece they will see that the author, Carlton Meyer, has made the entire thing up. This “testimony” never occurred. There is no record of it in the Congressional record. Meyer has even publicly admitted that he made the whole thing up. The Carlton Meyer’s, Harry Dunn’s and Everest Riccioni’s of the world have to resort to these tactics, aka lies, to validate their criticism of the project. Makes one wonder how much United Technologies stock is in their portfolios.
The silence from some of you people is deafening whenever a H-60, CH-46, CH-47, CH-53, AH-64, AH-1, H-1, OH-58, et al, goes down. Where was all this angst when CH-46s were literally breaking up in flight over Vietnam due to Station 410 failures? Where was all of this angst when the Blackhawk was earning the nickname Crashhawk? The hypocrisy never ceases to amaze. William Randolph Hearst would be proud of you sensationalists.
Hi, this is Carlton Meyer educating folks on the Internet. Yes, this is a very, very late post, but I've had a few seemingly intelligent people say that I "make things up" and use this link as proof. Are they insane?
First, anyone can post anything under any name. If you insult a program, someone can post here that you are child molester, and tell everyone to ignore you. This made up VMAQ2 is obviously one of Bell-Boeing's paid PR spin reps who roam the internet attacking anyone who opposes their projects, for good or bad. Note the poster doesn't include a link to G2mil, lest someone read the article and realize that I made it very, very clear that those are questions I hoped Congressmen might ask. Riccioni and Dunn are respected retired Colonels and former test pilots, yet he doesn't mention that.
This should be an example to all of what sinister people will do when good Americans come to the aid of their country when corporate scumbags try to steal money and kill Marines.
And let’s see, you naysayers. From ’77-’80 (approx.) how many Harriers crashed? That’s what I thought.
Ah yes! I remember Mendel Rivers and the after acceptance development of the C-5. I have flown on the ’5s several times…good aircraft….now. Too many “money profiteers” in the extreme sense are involved in the V-22, in my estimation. 20 years and 13 billion dollars and we still had a big trouble bird. Talk about sucking at the social tit, and claiming capitalism!! I have long maintained that we could make a brick fly with the investment of enough of the public’s money…proof is on the ramp! Come on! Let’s remember the troops, and the tax payers. We need to see beyond corporate greed!