stroboli62
Well-Known Member
Hmmmm.. Ford's 5.5./6.5 ft box? Izzat urban America's answer to the station wagon? Extra for an 8ft bed? Crazeeee
Droppin tailgates to haul sheetrock and plywood sure seems like wellll....pretty shortsighted by Ford
Osprey Crash
- Thread starter dustoff17
- Start date
Droppin tailgates to haul sheetrock and plywood sure seems like wellll....pretty shortsighted by Ford
stroboli62
Well-Known Member
Today's General Officers and some of the good idea fairy ideas comin back to life........Army's reinvention of the V22?
Christ...even the single and twin engine UH1s are still more reliable than this "improvement" to move troops
But hey us Boomers are watchin these "better ideas"
V280........Probably keep the maintainers and LRU techs bizzzzeeeee
NovemberEcho
Dergs favorite member
I know it gets a high profile, but doesn’t the Osprey actually have a below average accident rate compared to almost every other aircraft currently in inventory?
knot4u
Repeat Offender
Yes. But that's not important. "SARCASM"
dustoff17
Still trying to reach the Top Shelf
Actually, NO!
The Osprey has an accident rate more than 3x that of the Blackhawk. Over the life-span of both aircraft, the Blackhawk averages 1 accident per 100,000 flight hours. Fleet wide, the Osprey is 3.28 per 100,000 hours (The Marine Corps alone is 3.38 per 100,000).
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
Even those unsafe little general aviation jobbies have a rate of 0.951/100k flight hours.
knot4u
Repeat Offender
I'm no fan of tilt rotors, there's way too much happening that has to work perfectly 100% of the time for any type of success. I understand and appreciate airplanes and helicopters, I've successfully worked on both over the last 30 years. Airplanes are airplanes and helicopters are helicopters, trying to meld the two into anything that isn't a less capable version of its progenitors seems foolhardy. There's a reason why we don't have flying cars and jet packs, real life is not Avatar especially in combat. I'm not saying we should completely abandon this concept, we've been working on it since the late '50s. As far as the Blackhawk accident rate I wonder what it was when it was as young as the Osprey is now.
Last edited:
The V22: What you get when you allow Marines to "think" "strategically".
At least the V22 came out of some kind of actual perception (even if incorrect) of military need. Most programs from about 1989 on have been built almost entirely to profit the contractors, with military readiness being really just a kind of an afterthought of plausible deniability to cover the contractors' greed in their relentless pursuit of
IT PUTS THE FLATBED ON THE SUBARU... or it get's the hose again.
Got's to have the lifted truck to gits t'da Mall! 'Murica!!!
Stupid... Lots and lots of stupid... All around the Marketing-Political spectrum.
Last edited:
HJB
Well-Known Member
US grounds entire Osprey fleet after fatal crash in Japan
The move comes after eight service members died in a crash off the coast of Japan last week.
www.bbc.com
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
My father, an Osprey program manager, would agree with your statement if he were still alive. He was working on a book on the subject before his death. I’ve shared his notes with a number of writers that have showed interest in the subject.
Among his favorite talking points was his disbelief that the A-12 was cancelled and the V-22 survived.
While it’s easy to blame Bell-Boeing for all the problems with the V-22 program, the untold story is the incompetence at NAVAIR, with its revolving door of LCDR’s that had a poor understanding of engineering and defense contracting. Think about it, while the USAF managed ground-breaking aircraft like the F-117, B-2, F-22, and F-35 (yeah, I know), the Navy only succeeded with low-risk programs like the Hornet, Super Hornet, and Growler.
The untold story is that Boeing didn’t really give a damn about the Osprey and was surprised that it wasn’t cancelled.
Boeing had issues with training programs and thought that every V-22 unit would need a dozen tech reps. NAVAIR squelched these recommendations.
The Osprey is a problematic aircraft, primarily because NAVAIR was silent on what it would take to make it work. I’m holding my breath waiting for the first COD mishap.
Last edited:
NovemberEcho
Dergs favorite member
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
To put the V-22 program in perspective, since the 80’s, Boeing and Bell have split 56 billion dollars on the Osprey.
Sounds big, right?
Boeing has signed a ten year contract to service C-17’s for ten years, for 24 billion dollars.
Sounds big, right?
Boeing has signed a ten year contract to service C-17’s for ten years, for 24 billion dollars.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
Cut the price in half, keep fleet readiness over 80%, and cut mishaps in half and I’m an Osprey fan. Unfortunately, that’s science fiction fodder.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
Bring back the CH-53.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
I'm sure you've read The Dream Machine (I parenthetically specify that they did not say what sort of dream the V-22 is; I would call it a nightmare, myself). The history of the program was less than spectacular from that telling and in my view, from design to flight test to training. I can't help but think, too, that this is yet another futile exercise in jointness that will cost the taxpayer more than just building the right aircraft for the mission for each service.
I don't want one system to rule 'em all. I want systems that work, that aren't going to hurt our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Guardsmen and Guardians (?) needlessly, and that they can depend on.
Holding your breath waiting for a mishap isn't confidence-inspiring to say the least (not a swipe at you in the least, mind; it's a feeling I've had at various times in my own career and it's positively dreadful).
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
I haven’t read the book, I appreciate the recommendation.
If we zoom out a bit, the V-22 program looks like just about every 50’s and 60’s program, 70’s programs to an extent. New airframes equated to losses. Thankfully, we value lives more than we did during the Cold War.
Before I graduated from high school, I attended a dozen Intruder/Prowler memorial services. I think I was in my 20’s before I attended a funeral with a body.
Compared to the stellar record of the C-2, we can only hold our breath for the COD V-22. The V-22 can certainly do the job but the Navy isn’t good with change. Daylight C-2 ops is the standard for safety. It’s a shame that there weren’t any C-2 CAG’s singing its praises at NavAir. I’m curious what @bunk has to say .
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
I'm a fan of C-2 squadron (and to an extent as well, the E-2 squadrons') cruise videos. Those guys look like they're having fun in those beastly machines.
Naval aviation fanboy things aside: They're not new or shiny, but outside looking in/as a layman, it would appear the C-2 program was working. The mishap history doesn't look terribly damning, especially considering how long that aircraft has served and allowing for the frankly horrific nature of launching and recovering on the boat.
Procurement sucks, I guess.
Jointness isn’t a bad word. There have been a number of successful programs amongst all of the services. F-4 Phantom, UH-1 Huey, to name a few.
Accidents will unfortunately happen with revolutionary technology. Sometimes to one nation and their military more than others. AV-8A Harrier, USMC version, compared to the same GR1 version in RAF service, is a prime example. The USMC accident rate was high. Even though I like that small sized Harrier much more than the larger airframe it grew into as the B model.