Hotdogs Posted April 13, 2013 Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 That's not an Amphib. Nice try though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ftxag76 Posted April 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 True, I was just throwing that out there for shits and giggles 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob1237051 Posted April 13, 2013 Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 We're a Naval service and the C-130 can't operate from Amphibs. You think the MV-22 hourly operating costs are bad? Go look at what the USAF spends. The aging F-16C is in the neighborhood of 7k and the top end F-22 is north of 35k, I don't know what a B-2 or B-52 costs, i can imagine though, but yeah the Osprey is AFU. Last I heard is that it's currently in the area of 8k. We can make up missions for it that fit its capabilities, but the fact of the matter is it takes up ramp space overseas. It cannot adequately perform the missions it was supposed to. I'm glad that the Marines have found some good uses for it. Seriously...They should brief the Air Force or something. Again, I really think tilt rotor is wave of the future stuff. This technology will advance and we will be flying around in the sh*t from Avatar one day. However, the current incarnation is more a testament to the DOD's broken acquisitions process than technological advancement. I understand you have talked to a few pilots and the airframe itself has some positives and a lot of potential. However, talk to the maintenance support guys and the "customers." Those problems I was talking about in dusty environments have nothing to do with downwash. The Chinook generates comparable downwash and it's an excellent platform. It also has just as big a profile. What's TBO on an AH-1 engine? Several hundred to a thousand hours right? Do you see what I'm getting at? Everyone I've talked to (swoopy and not so much) who has taken a ride on that thing to the LZ is not impressed. If you have really seen it land, as your statements suggest, then you must have noticed some key differences in that last quarter of a mile to the LZ over standard rotary wing. Now, I must say that if 10000 is really the operating cost, then it's not that high. It's more than what it's worth, but it's not astronomical. You can't compare it to strategic bombers or next gen fighters, however. Try other rotary wing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I3uller Posted April 13, 2013 Report Share Posted April 13, 2013 That's not an Amphib. Nice try though. Does it count if it flies too? How about them apples for future vertical lift... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electron_si Posted April 15, 2013 Report Share Posted April 15, 2013 Its [The V-22's] production costs are considerably greater than for helicopters with equivalent capability—specifically, about twice as great as for the CH-53E, which has a greater payload and an ability to carry heavy equipment the V-22 cannot... an Osprey unit would cost around $60 million to produce, and $35 million for the helicopter equivalent. —Michael E. O'Hanlon, 2002. A Government Accountability Office study reported that by January 2009 the Marines had 12 MV-22s operating in Iraq and they completed all assigned missions. The same report found that the V-22 deployments had mission capable rates averaging 57% to 68% and an overall full mission capable rate of only 6%. It also stated that the aircraft had shown weakness in situational awareness, maintenance, shipboard operations and the ability to transport troops and external cargo. GAO-09-482 Hotdogs said that people have been using hearsay when talking about the V-22 so here are some words straight from GAO's mouth. Cost to Operational Rate is HORRENDOUS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotdogs Posted April 15, 2013 Report Share Posted April 15, 2013 That was 4 years ago. All new programs go through issues like that when they stand up. Think what you want, but the Osprey gets a lot of unwarranted trashing from people not on the inside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electron_si Posted April 15, 2013 Report Share Posted April 15, 2013 That was 4 years ago. All new programs go through issues like that when they stand up. Think what you want, but the Osprey gets a lot of unwarranted trashing from people not on the inside. Hotdogs, This is in no way meant to be a bash session on you, I'm just debating my POV against your POV since you are the self appointed representative for the Osprey in this thread. As a 60 driver I constantly bash chinooks but if someone from the other services or civilians were trashing them I would stand up for them because they are part of the Army fleet, whether or not I like them personally or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotdogs Posted April 16, 2013 Report Share Posted April 16, 2013 Hotdogs, This is in no way meant to be a bash session on you, I'm just debating my POV against your POV since you are the self appointed representative for the Osprey in this thread. As a 60 driver I constantly bash chinooks but if someone from the other services or civilians were trashing them I would stand up for them because they are part of the Army fleet, whether or not I like them personally or not.Oh I don't take any of this personally, but people should be making informed and up to date assessments. I bash on these dudes at work, but for other more valid reasons. Try to view things from a different service with a different aviation doctrine too. Things have changed in the last 4 or 5 years and its not a complete sh*t show anymore so take it for what it's worth. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. Was there cheaper more affordable 90% solution at the time? Yup, but doctrinally, that's not where Corps wanted to place his bet, and now we have the Osprey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester2138 Posted April 16, 2013 Report Share Posted April 16, 2013 "By the time the Marines first put the Osprey into service in Iraq in 2007, though, it had cost more time, money and lives than any other piece of equipment the Corps has ever bought -- 25 years, $22 billion and 30 deaths in crashes during its development. The Osprey was a very ugly duckling.Since then, the saga has taken a very different turn, but many of the Osprey's loudest critics – notable among them the New York Times editorial page – went to sleep in the middle of the story..." http://defense.aol.com/2011/08/09/the-v-22-safer-than-helos-effective-worth-buying/ I'm no expert, but perhaps some will find this article interesting at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBuzzkill Posted April 16, 2013 Report Share Posted April 16, 2013 Him lumping all helicopters together and then comparing them to Ospreys doesn't make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electron_si Posted April 17, 2013 Report Share Posted April 17, 2013 I get where the author is coming from, saying that the Osprey had a bumpy start but after things were corrected its going better, but still, it was expensive and unsafe at the start and should have been canned early on and saved the government tons of money. They cut the commanche because of costs, I'm not quite sure how the osprey made it. The commanche didn't even kill anyone, it was just expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamer Posted April 18, 2013 Report Share Posted April 18, 2013 anyone hear about this new blimp type aircraft the army is going to? right now its uav, soon itll be manned and troop transport. getting a brief about it soon for theLTC. i forgot the name of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ftxag76 Posted April 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2013 anyone hear about this new blimp type aircraft the army is going to? right now its uav, soon itll be manned and troop transport. getting a brief about it soon for theLTC. i forgot the name of it. Yeeeeeeeeeeeah, the Army deflated that monster... (http://defense.aol.com/2012/05/01/military-airships-hot-air-or-soaring-promise/) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.