Osprey finally arrives in a combat zone, after more repairs

[Barrett808]

Source: McClatchy Newspapers

Osprey finally arrives in a combat zone, after more repairs
By Jay Price | McClatchy Newspapers

BAGHDAD — The controversial V-22 Osprey has arrived in a combat zone for the first time.

It was an epic trip for the innovative tilt-rotor plane, one that took more than 25 years of development and cost 30 lives and $20 billion. Even the last short hop — from an aircraft carrier into Iraq — went awry, U.S. military officials said Monday.

A malfunction forced one of the 10 Ospreys that were deployed to land in Jordan on Thursday. The Marines flew parts to it from Iraq and repaired it. After it took off again Saturday, the problem recurred, and it had to turn back and land in Jordan a second time, said Maj. Jeff Pool, a U.S. military spokesman in western Iraq. It finally was repaired and arrived at al Asad Air Base in western Iraq late Sunday afternoon.

Maj. Eric Dent, an Osprey spokesman at Marine Corps Headquarters in Washington, declined to identify the problem. "The nature of the malfunction was a minor issue, but our aircrews are top-notch when it comes to safety," he wrote by e-mail. "Rather than continue, the aircrew opted to land at a pre-determined divert location and further investigate the issue."

Now the Osprey is on the world stage, and the burden of proving it's safe, reliable and effective in combat is on the North Carolina-based Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263, nicknamed the Thunder Chickens. The unit's mission will be transporting troops and cargo in western Iraq.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/20304.html

[tanyev]

1. To quote Han Solo: "I've got a bad feeling about this."

[Dr.Phool]

2. Why did they name that piece of shit after a beautiful bird?

They should reconsider and name it the V-22 Bush, because it can't do anything right.

[NYVet]

3. Dupe thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=259x5009

[winston61]

4. What a boondoggle

I've followed the continuing tragedy of this aircraft in the Star Telegram for a long time. The contractor and the military have soaked us for God knows how many billions of dollars for this flying turd. The right wing assholes who claim that government can't do anything right never seem to mention the Military Industrial Complex or complain about 100s of billions thrown down the shit hole for planes that don't fly.

[Az_lefty]

5. I feel for the Marines that have to ride in that flying coffin.

[madrchsod]

6. the bad guys will be able to take them out

with the latest rpg`s. huge slow target on take-off..

[Barrett808]

9. I'm more concerned about the sand

Iraq's a brutal operational environment, and the Osprey seems pretty fragile...

[CRF450]

12. Helicopters arent any different when they're lifting off.

But the Osprey's cruising speed is much much faster.

[truthisfreedom]

7. Okay, so they send over this very high-value target, the "insurgents" try as hard as they can to

bring one down (because it's so high-profile and expensive), and then they gain major points when one is destroyed.

Why are we doing this? Because someone got spectacularly rich over this extended project and bushco wants to protect them from the "failure fallout" by destroying the things in a war zone to eliminate the evidence?

[librechik]

8. Marines Draw Straws, Losers Ride in The Big Bird

:sarcasm:

I hate this. Good People are sure to die from this unwarranted exercise in hubris

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. THUNDER chickens? THUNDER CHICKENS?

for real?
The idea of an self-respecting military professional stepping into a thundering chicken, even after two major repairs on its maiden flight to Iraq just boggles the mind.

[CRF450]

11. Why the hell cant they seem to get the problems fixed??

The plane itself is a very good design, I'm a big fan of it, but its reliability is shit, and nothing but that just about!

[catnhatnh]

13. Wrong song...

...because the best defense in setting down troops in a small LZ is to present multiple targets to an asymetrically less able enemy-IE: if they have 4 launchers you are better off presenting 8-9 Huey type targets (48-56 Troops) than 5 CH-60 targets or 3 Ospreys....and the Osprey cannot autorotate.In a crashing Huey almost half survived, Osprey-well, in fact NONE.

[happyslug]

14. The concept is good, but getting ti to work is another thing.

The theory is you can tilt the rotator from vertical to horizontal positions. While this sound easy, you still have to maintain the fuel lines and control lines intact. In a conventional plane or Helicopter these fuel lines and control lines always stay in the same position between the pilot (for the control lines) and the fuel tanks. In the Osprey these have to move as the engines moves. On top of this the engine moves WHILE IT IS ON, making vibration. A further complication is you can NOT have more than two point to hold the engines (as completed to the 4 or more point the engine in your car has). The engines pivots around these two points, one on each side of the engine. These NOT Small planes or engines. The only other plane that used pivoting engines is the Harrier (A plane know for being picky to operate with a huge lost do to engine failures ,but it has ejection seat for the pilot which seems to have reduced pilots killed by the plane). The osprey will NOT have ejection seat for anyone including the pilots.

The Russians when they deployed a VTOL fighter like the Harrier opted for two engines, one for vertical takeoff and landing the other for horizontal operations. The Russian VTOL Fighter requires TWO engines instead of one, but you could fix the engines to the fighter at more than two points, and fix the fuel and controls to each without having to worry about them breaking do to movement of the engines. You carry two engines instead of one, but most of the problems of the Harrier and the Osprey are avoided.

This has been the problem for Decades (Pivoting engines were first proposed in the 1920s and research has occurred since them, but the biggest problem has been the engines and how to keep getting fuel to them AND to maintain pilot control over the engines). Will these control issues ever be fixed? Maybe, but it might be better to do like the Russians, use two engines, even if this means more weight (But such a Solution, while possible for a fighter, would make the Osprey ever heavier and larger so that its use compared to a C-130 might not be worth the effort).

More on the Harrier
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/av-8.htm

On The Osprey
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/v-22.htm
At the bottom on this site, it shows the HUGE size of the Rotators needed on this type of plane, anther problem that that have to be addressed (Which often requires the engines to be at the end of the wing, reducing the pivot point to ONE from two, which adds to the problems of design.

On the YAK-38:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/yak-38.htm

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

15. Keep your chutes packed and strapped on tightly, pilots.

You're gonna need 'em.

You KNOW they're gonna sweat bullets each time they have to climb into those death machines.

OTOH, the more they malfunction, the fewer innocent civilians will die because of them.

[unkachuck]

16. if it's been....

....'more than 25 years of development and cost 30 lives' isn't by definition, obsolete?

[liberal renegade]

17. V-22 Obsolete

[happyslug]

19. Age does NOT by itself make something obsolete.

When I was in, the sock we were issued had been first designed in WWI and was still considered the best sock available in the 1980s (And maybe today from what I have heard, wool is considered your BEST material for socks).

The old 1903 Springfield was used till Vietnam (Unofficially, officially it was replaced as a Sniper rifle during Korea but unofficially was used during Vietnam). Why was it still used? It was more accurate then the M1 and M14 that succeeded it. Recently the US army has adopted a new Bolt Action Rifle as its Sniper Rifle? Why? The bolt action is more accurate then the Semi-automatics action of the M1, M14 and M16s.

When I was in my unit was still using cooking equipment from WWII (made by Coleman). Why? They worked. Except for those units which now microwave their food, the old WWII stoves may still be in use (And given the need for a steady source of Electricity for Microwaves, the old Coleman ovens might still be preferred, except that they were gasoline operated and thus it is hard to get Gasoline now that the Army has converted over to 100% diesel usage).

The Piper Cub was first used by the military during WWII, used to this day as a low speed scout plane. Why? It is cheap, easy to repair and does the job of scouting for the Artillery and Air power as good as anything else (Through the low speed drones may be replacing it).

Our helicopters we are using were mostly designed during Vietnam, and worked while in Vietnam and work while today. Possible replacements are roughly the same design do to the limits of what a helicopter can do. Electronics have changed a lot of how a helicopter is used, but the basic restrictions as to the ability to go up and down is still the same today as it was in Vietnam.

Obsolescence comes to high tech equipment much faster than support equipment. When I was in in the 1980s My National Guard units had trucks made in the late 1940s. Why were they kept? They worked and the possible replacements did NOT do the job the trucks were doing any better.

Now if you look at planes, most were obsolete within five introduction UNTIL THE 1960s. Why the change? It was found that if you went faster than about 800mph you had to carry so much fuel you had to so large that a smaller, slower and more nimble fighter could shoot you down. Thus greater speed was NO longer the great decider of air combat it had been since WWI. Thus as Vietnam ended you had the F-15 and F-14 introduced and they stay in use till today (As for the F-15, the F-14 was replaced a few years ago, but that had more to do with the end of the Cold War and updated electronics so that such a large plane was no longer needed by the Navy).
The F-15 is about to be replaced by the "Raptor" but at a huge increase in price and only a marginal increase in survivability (do more to designing the Raptor with Stealth than any other improvement). In fact I read one Air Force General who stated a preference to adopt the Su-27 then the Raptor. His rational was simple The push to replace the F-15 is coming about do to the end of the expected life of its Air Frame, not that there is a better fighter. The SU-27 is almost as good as the F-15 and can be purchased much more cheaply than the Raptor and if updated with American Electronics be better than any other plane in the World (Including other Su-32s) at a huge savings. Furthermore in about 20 years manned fighters may be obsolete do to increase ability of Ground to Air Missiles to shoot them down AND the increase ability to stay in contact with unmanned drones. Such drones would be lighter, for you will NOT need to put in ANYTHING for a pilot, Smaller, for you design the drone around a weapon NOT a pilot and further range do to the ability to go one way if necessary. Yes, unmanned fighters are coming and that is the next large step in Fighters. In this Generals view (and I agree with him) the Raptor is a waste of Tax payer's money better spent elsewhere.

But back to my view, does the above mean the F-15 is Obsolete? Not yet and maybe not for another 20 years. Is the Air Frame use up? Prob ally (this seems also to be why the Navy Replaced the F-14). Air Frames can ONLY last so long, and most F-15s were purchased in the 1970s and are at the end of their Air Frame lives. That does NOT make them obsolete, just in need of replacement by new F-15s or as the one General said the SU-27 Flanker with US electronics.

My point is mere age does NOT make something obsolete. During the Napoleonic Wars, Napoleon orders his Light Calvary to use the Lance for the First time in over 100 years. Why? The Light Calvary would be used as a second line of a Calvary attack, to give them pistols meant having them shoot at the back of the Calvary in the First line. Without Pistols the light Calvary had no long distance weapon (can only reach things within saber range). Thus Napoleon ordered his light Calvary to use Lances for the first time since 1675. European Calvary continued to use Lances till WWI for the same reason Napoleon had readopted the Lance, it worked. Only when the rest of the World adopted Russian/American Calvary tactics that the Lance was obsolete (and in 1912 the US Calvary accurately wanted to keep the Lance, get rid of the Saber and the pistol and give each Cavalryman a Lance and a Rifle only). The reason for this was simple, American/Russian Calvary tactics had been since the 1850s to use Calvary as mounted Infantry. Thus no Calvary Charge and no need for the pistol or the Saber. The Lance would be kept just in case the Cavalryman meet an enemy while mounted and did not have time to dismount (Used this way by German and other Messenger riders during WWI).

Thus when did the Lance become obsolete? When it was no longer useful on the battlefield (Which meant it was still useful during WWI, but marginal during WWII and finally obsolete as WWII ended as the Russians replaced their Calvary's Lances with Submachine guns). The same with any other weapon, part or tool. It is obsolete when it is no longer useful or something better is available. Age does NOT make that happen, it is usefulness that makes that happen.

As to the Osprey, age does NOT make it obsolete, the fact we are fighting a insurgency does. It needs to operate in areas with minimal contact with the enemy (i.e. transportation of troops) to near the Combat area but NOT into combat. Given this war, it is useless. Anywhere it can land safety, older helicopters can also land safely (in fact given the nature of Helicopters they can get nearer the enemy than the Osprey can). The further the men are from the area of combat the more they have to travel to the combat area. Thus while older helicopters are slower to get the troops to be near the combat area, given the Helicopter can get CLOSER than the Osprey the Troops could get to the Combat Area FASTER by Helicopters than the Osprey (Because the troops are much closer to the combat area). Thus the problem with the Osprey is NOT that it is obsolete, the problem is that they are better way to do the job it was designed for.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

24. Thank you. Otherwise, my house would have no mirrors.

nor phones, nor computers.

[liberal renegade]

18. Soon to be the second biggest killer of american troops

[JCMach1]

20. They better be top-notch maintenance guys

[Javaman]

21. sounds like the pentagon is dumping old inventory to make room for new stuff. nt

[GCP]

22. My son was offered a ride on one that later crashed

He was active duty in the Marine Corps at the time. He declined (thank god), a friend didn't, and the plane crashed killing all onboard. These things are just killing machines and I dread the first news of one crashing with Marines onboard.

[truebrit71]

23. In one piece? Then they shouldn't push their luck and leave it on the ground...

...