The Osprey Vs. the CH-46

[erpowers]

Today, I finally read the "Time" magazine article about the V-22 Osprey, which has now been deployed to Iraq. While reading the article I saw that the CH-46 was mentioned. The author mentioned the fact that the CH-46 had become obsolete. I wondered why it had become obsolete. So, I looked up the CH-46. From what I read at Wikipedia the CH-46 seemed to be a pretty good helicopter that did all of the combat things the Osprey is now supposed to do without the problems the Osprey is having. The CH-46 can actually do more than the Osprey in that it can definitely be flown at night. There has been very little night testing of the Osprey. My first thought was, if the CH-46 already does what the Osprey is supposed to do with less problems why not just keep making the CH-46. In addition, it seems the CH-46 will be used until 2014.

I think I might know why certain people decided to make the Osprey instead of just keeping the CH-46 and maybe updating it a little bit. However, it seems like the CH-46 should have been continued and any money spent should have just been used to update the CH-46. Even in terms of "vertical takeoff and landing and short takeoff and landing capability" the CH-46 had those capabilities. I understand things become obsolete, but it seems like there was very little reason to replace the CH-46.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. I guess the Osprey's got a bigger price tag.

It's got nothing to do with how good it is, but how much money it can make.

[Stinky The Clown]

2. I believe this is about kicking Blue States in the ass.

The Osprey has been fraught with problems from the start. The Sikorsky made CH-46 has done yeoman service forever. It is as dependable an airframe as exists.

But ....

The Sikorsky is built in Connecticut.

The Osprey is not.

They did the same thing with Marine One. Instead of an all AMERICAN helicopter (always Sikorsky-built in, first Bridgeport and then, Stratford, CT), they went with that bastardized piece of shit they're now flying.

There is not other legitimate explanation.

[slackmaster]

3. The Marines are still using the CH-46 for something

I see them flying over the area around MCAS Miramar almost every day.

[wuushew]

4. The CH-46 ceased production long long ago

Airframes don't last forever. If not the Osprey then another newer helicopter at least.

[unhappycamper]

5. I had posted some Osprey articles in the Veterans forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=259

[sailor65]

6. The Osprey is not a helicopter

That is the primary functional difference. Because the Osprey is aerodynamically a "Fixed wing" aircraft, it enjoys a much longer (Roughly double) service range than the CH-46, and almost triple the max takeoff weight.

Although the implementation of the Osprey has been a nightmare, the reason behind developing such a vehicle is the obvious improvement in payload delivery for a VTOL aircraft over existing choices.