Comments on: MV-22 Will Cruise, Not Fly, to War

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:30:19 +0000

Don’t be concerned, my buddy who rehitched emailed me that rather than ferry the troops to the enemy the standing orders are to keep the MV-22

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:13:38 +0000

Gentleman and fellow Marines, the solution is to load on a bunch of congressman and take them on a fast deplyment into “harmsway”. According to a friend who re-hithched they are just going on show missions to no where, with standing orders to avoid the “insurgents”. Good thing as he says when they land they are held captive onboard in the resulting sandstorm praying some Jaheedist doesn’t shoot a 7 into the center of the storm.
Then you have to watch that ou don’t trip over the stupid whimp gun they put on the exit ramp.

By: howar

howar — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:49:42 +0000

i might appreciate a bit more of the Warthog approach to this plane/helo but, let’s see how it works out in real operational situations.
the news will help this make it’s bones in combat.

By: Gordon

Gordon — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:38:57 +0000

I’m pretty familiar with the V-22. I’m also happy to say, I served with HMM 263 in Nam.
The aircraft has been throughly tested for years now. 263 has been flying the aircraft in excess of a year now I believe, with no problems so far. Tactics, flight plans, maintenace, crews have all been busy preparing the 22 for their mission in Iraq, and we can only hope it is uneventful and safe.
The vortex ring situation seems to have been resolved as it was one of the biggest problems they had with the aircraft in development. Redundant systems have been added to warn the crew of an approaching problem in this area. But, any chopper can go into a vortex ring situation, the 22 is no different…pilot training should have resolved this issue. It does appear the 22 more easily transitions into this state than most rotary wing aircraft but studying the phenomenon and training should end this problem.
Cabin size is a problem and oxygen supplies. The reason the 22 cannot be used for high altitude operations, no oxygen for the troops it would carry. It appears the 22 will not be operating in high altitude situations while carrying troops. This will increase the fuel consumption due to low altittude operations, so operating costs will increase.
Another problem, the 22 is not armed. There is no provision for guns for the crew members as we see on nearly all other choppers. There is some chatter about adding a minigat to the rear of the plane but this would make ingress and egress difficult for troops.
I’m not totally convinced the 22 will do everything promised, time will tell. Let’s hope they have a safe deployment and everyone returns home safe and sound.
S/F Gordon

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:14:35 +0000

Great post Dennis. You said it all short and crisp.
What matters most is what the people flyng the V-22 think of it.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:18:29 +0000

Even though I sympathize with folks who have lost friends in the development of this craft, I cannot say we should throw it in the trash heap.
How many people died in developing the aircraft we fly today? How many people died just trying to crack the sound barrier?
Should those Marines been in that Osprey when they knew it had issues. Hell no. There have been mistakes made.
It seems like if you go outside the operating parameters of what this machine can do, people die.
So either they have to change the craft, or make software that does not allow the pilot to go out of its design parameters.
Lets remember why the Marines are bent on having this craft. Because storming a beach can have 50% casualty rates.
With these craft, they can go much farther inland and a hell of a lot faster than a chopper can.

By: txzen

txzen — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:00:44 +0000

What I fear is if the props get stuck in the plane mode and it has to land smashing the props into the ground. And I bet if I knew what a vortex spin was I might fear that more!

By: magdevildawg

magdevildawg — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:20:15 +0000

Oh my God! From my experience as working with these; I can't believe they're actually putting these out there like this. I knew nearly every Marine that lost their lives during test indoctrination of these aircrafts. I still hear their voices when they'd say; "see you a the E Club and first one's on you." Come on. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Have they really worked out all the bugs. Simulations and real time are two very different things here. Now we're sending them out to the sand box. I mean, not only are the personnel flying them are at HIGH RISK, but what of the troops that will be depending on the pick up (extract) or awaiting the precious cargo, or re-inforcements. God be with my fellow Marines. Why is it that we're always thought of the most expendable? Because we're the hardest; toughest; most patriotic; Git 'er done; hard charging; grit lov'n bunch of misfits this country can produce. I love you my brothers and Semper Fi. Even if country isn't to us.

By: springbored

springbored — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:12:09 +0000

Hey, it’s a Marine craft, so why in heck not send a flight of Osprey out on a working cruise before they head into the thick of a ground war? They are supposed to be working sea-dogs, right?
For the US, this is a heck of a high-risk deployment. I’d have been loathe to authorize the deployment–one of those things goes down while carrying Marines, then the Osprey becomes the poster child of the Iraq Conflict. A burned-up symbol of tech hubris. I’d have much rather seen this thing sent out for a humanitarian exercise–send it out to work with the Hospital Ship Deployment or figure out a way to fit a few on the Pelileiu. Then, if there’s a major accident (god forbid) then, well, the Osprey becomes a noble failure rather than an ignominious one.
So if they want to take a slow boat to war before it’s “winner-take-all, high-stakes” proving ground, then fine by me. We’ve got enought going on already and don’t need that high-profile distraction (and maintenace resources sink) out there.

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:10:10 +0000

I think that the Osprey is a disaster waiting to happen. Not only has its track record been horable, but it has already claimed countless lives of my fellow Marines. I knew two Marines that were killed, as well as the rest of the thirteen Infantry men and three air crew, in the late spring of 2000 in Yuma Arizona. I think that the budget and time that was taken to get this platform in service has been a waste to the tax payers and to the Marine Corps.
The Marine Corps has always done a very good job with upgrading what they have in it’s invetory. Example, the new and approved UH-1Y, AH-1Z Cobra, and the new CH-53F model that is coming on-line.
It would have cost far less to make newer Airframes of the CH-46 Sea Knight with approved avionics, power plant, and in flight refueling capability. It would have worked, and because it has proven itself time and again it would have saved countless lives and money.
I know that the Osprey offers greater range, speed, altitude, and in-flight refueling, but is it going to be needed in future operation and conflicts? Is the newer CH-53F model not going to be able to do everything that Osprey can, other than Speed and Altitude? Will, and can the Osprey, out perform the newer CH-53 F in combat, in reliability, and in surviveability? Will its size and Rotor Disk keep it from going places that the CH-53 and other airframes can go? All these questions present problems that the Osprey wont be able to answer in a operational stand point.
I believe that like the F-35 with its single engine and huge budget, and the MV-22 Osprey with all its issues, is a concept sold and fed by the need of business, political and budgeting reasons by military and non military, rather than what was is truely needed by the military. One good example of upgrading that has made perfect since, and is worthy budget wise is the Navy’s F/A-18 E,F,and G, the Marines CH-53F, UH-1Y, and AH-1Z. These upgrades, and new platforms, ie the F/A-18 E,F, and G are new airframes, larger in size and in Power, have newer avionics, and is proof of good budget spending. They also fit the need of the services and the realities of combat today.