V-22 Osprey
Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:13 pm
Sorry, I've been reading this for a while and I've just got to reply to some of this. I was fortunate enough to be involved in the Osprey program for several years at Pax River back in the early/mid 90's.
1) Guns:
There was never any call for a gun on this aircraft. Remember, this is a replacement for a medium lift cargo helicopter and size does matter when you're talking about a gunship. No-one in their right mind wants a gunship this big since it makes a much easier target for whoever is shooting at it. Never heard anything about mounting a chingun until the Air Force decided to sticking their 2 cents in, and the Marines never showed much interest in it. Unnesessary weight which could be put to good use elsewhere (cargo capacity).
2) Size:
As stated before, this aircraft is a replacement for the CH-46, a medium lift helicopter. There is no need for a larger version since the Marines already possess an excellent heavy lift helo with the CH-53E.
And finally, there is no reason to complain about everything the Marines designed this aircraft for. Remember, the Marines were the only ones that kept this program afloat for many years when everyone else (including the Air Force) were trying to kill it and get its funding for themselves. So please don't try to jump on the wagon at the last minute and then try to say the aircraft doesn't meet any of your requirements when it was designed for something totally different.
1) Guns:
There was never any call for a gun on this aircraft. Remember, this is a replacement for a medium lift cargo helicopter and size does matter when you're talking about a gunship. No-one in their right mind wants a gunship this big since it makes a much easier target for whoever is shooting at it. Never heard anything about mounting a chingun until the Air Force decided to sticking their 2 cents in, and the Marines never showed much interest in it. Unnesessary weight which could be put to good use elsewhere (cargo capacity).
2) Size:
As stated before, this aircraft is a replacement for the CH-46, a medium lift helicopter. There is no need for a larger version since the Marines already possess an excellent heavy lift helo with the CH-53E.
And finally, there is no reason to complain about everything the Marines designed this aircraft for. Remember, the Marines were the only ones that kept this program afloat for many years when everyone else (including the Air Force) were trying to kill it and get its funding for themselves. So please don't try to jump on the wagon at the last minute and then try to say the aircraft doesn't meet any of your requirements when it was designed for something totally different.
Re: V-22 Osprey
Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:57 pm
fitzday wrote:Remember, the Marines were the only ones that kept this program afloat for many years when everyone else (including the Air Force) were trying to kill it and get its funding for themselves.
Big blue Air Force might not have liked it, but SOCOM & AFSOC have wanted it from the get-go.
fitzday wrote:So please don't try to jump on the wagon at the last minute and then try to say the aircraft doesn't meet any of your requirements when it was designed for something totally different.
All too true, but when a plane has been in development for as long as Osprey has, perceptions change, requirements change, environment changes, etc. Looking back with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it's too small internally. However, like you said, it's what USMC asked for.
I'm a fan. I just wish SOCOM/AFSOC (actually, it pre-dates the creation of SOCOM & AFSOC!) had been able to get involved earlier. Or, option B, a second version was created for spec ops that caters to some of our unique requirements - R&D could have been mostly absorbed by USMC & basic Osprey. Fix the things that are now considered flaws (because requirements have changed, not because of anything USMC did/didn't do).
Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:54 am
Having been a Crew Chief for A-7's and A-10's for many years, I can tell you that the change in MC rates downrange are in fact from flying them. Most aircraft, like any mechanical beast will work better when used more frequently then when just used once a week or so, versus 3 or 4 times daily. Things go bad sitting and not being used, Kinda like the brain of a politican.
Over use is bad, but that doesn't always happen downrange.
Look at changed made to the various aircraft during WWII, when they found flaws in design or function and just fixed them as they went, no one made a big deal of it.
Over use is bad, but that doesn't always happen downrange.
Look at changed made to the various aircraft during WWII, when they found flaws in design or function and just fixed them as they went, no one made a big deal of it.
Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:17 pm
Jet Mech wrote:Having been a Crew Chief for A-7's and A-10's for many years, I can tell you that the change in MC rates downrange are in fact from flying them. Most aircraft, like any mechanical beast will work better when used more frequently then when just used once a week or so, versus 3 or 4 times daily. Things go bad sitting and not being used, Kinda like the brain of a politican.
Over use is bad, but that doesn't always happen downrange.
Look at changed made to the various aircraft during WWII, when they found flaws in design or function and just fixed them as they went, no one made a big deal of it.
True to an extent.
I believe MC rates go up downrange because there's a higher priority on both MX & Ops side. MX works harder to get their birds in the air, they have priority for parts in the supply system, & supervision gives them the support they need. On the ops side, you're more likely to take a minor snag & write it up later than wait for a spare...
Flying them is typically not the problem - they see plenty of use at home, IMO (depending on fleet dynamics - I'm in a LD/HD platform with small fleet dynamics).