[Cruver Collecter]

Originally Posted by Hoverbug

The Marines definitely wanted it - so much so they put all their eggs in one basket. They are in a real bind now if the Osprey doesn't come out aces in its deployment as the CH-46s are flying with one wheel in the boneyard and there is nothing in the pipeline to replace them. The need to squeeze on deck elevators makes an off-the shelf solution a near impossibility.

That and these eggs definitely came at a pretty steep price. Just wonder if it will measure up to all the assets & funds that were sunk into it.

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by hworth18

To be honest, I am in the "No" crowd when it comes to this bird, but I also admit that I don't know too much about it other than what I have read about and seen on the news/web.. All the reports I have seen shows it to be a "trouble-plagued" way over budget albatross that the military really never wanted in the first place and that it was a pork-project of some senator to funnel money to his "military contract contributors"...

Let me list a few programs from the past that the press bashed all the way, yet turned out rather nicely: F-111, C-5, C-17, F-15, F-14, F-22, M-2 Bradley, M-1 Abrams, the Navy's super-carriers, Patriot missile, AMRAAM (AIM-120), and the list goes on. I've been reading the press on military programs since I was a kid, and it never stops.

Newsflash: the press is into the business of selling newspapers and magazines, and not necessarily by telling the truth if the truth is no sensational enough. Every glitch in development of a new system becomes a "total failure," because that's what they need to sell their product: sensationalism.

As far as Cheney wanting to cancel a program, well in my opinion, that should be grounds for suspecting the program is actually OK. Yeah, I know I'm exagerating here, but him and Rumsfeld have been consistent enemies of airpower over the years (although in the case of the A-12, he may have made the right decision. But even a broken clock is right twice a day). In fact, now that Rumsfled is gone (and Cheney will be gone soon enough), we may finally get enough F-22s.

Oh, and by the way, my buddies in the Air Force Special Ops community tell me they love the Osprey (CV-22). In fact, the Air Force retired their MH-53s early (they were falling apart anyway), and are looking at ways to speed up attainment of full operational capability for the CV-22 and send them to Irak.

It's funny how people will trust money-and-glory-hungry journalists over the people who actually will fly and employ these things in actual combat.

FVD

[no4mkit]

Well put, FVD. Only thing I'd add is "Anti-military" to your "money-and-glory-hungry journalists"...

[timbo]

Originally Posted by no4mkit

Well put, FVD. Only thing I'd add is "Anti-military" to your "money-and-glory-hungry journalists"...

No I disagree here - They are anti-everything if it makes a good story. With the press - perception is 9/10's or reality, the other 1/10 is reality and often gets ignored.

The thing about the Osprey is that it might now be a cracking bird in real life, but the program has been atrociously managed, and has not done it's reputation any favors. Has anyone really been held accountable for this bad management.

[Hoverbug]

The nutty part is that this thing is finally getting an operational trial after 18 years of flight test and NOW Time decides it is the appropriate moment to go after it. If killing it was the goal, the window was back in 2000, when it was teetering on the edge. A lot has improved in the program since then. I still don't know if it's worth it or not in a cost-benefit analysis, but it's too late to reverse course now regardless. More marines will die in CH-46s if those airframes get pushed any further beyond their life cycle.

[PappyB]

Well as a member of the jounalistic community for almost my entire life I must say I can't quite see this all as sensationalistic ink to make a buck at the expense of our military during wartime... though I'm sure all the goverment employees, lobbyists, and contractors involved on this project are all looking out for the taxpayers' best interests, and the country's best interests, and they have all been nothing but forthright and honest during the 18 years of this bird's development.

As for Time picking now.. what better time to do a high profile story on it than its first operational deployment, when a good percentage of the public are becoming aware of it for the first time? It's called a news hook. (I do think Time over-sold the story a bit, at the very least.) Back in 2000 it would have been much harder to get the public to care, due to how apathetic the US is. I do agree that it's too late to reverse course and we've got to see what it can do. Hopefully, it will live up to the Marine's expectations and proove to be the viable replacement for the CH-46 you all are saying we need so badly.

As I said before, and I take heart from FVD's comments about the military folks that have to use the thing liking it, I was at least encouraged that Time -- even if it were out to purely to smear the project, which I don't believe -- could not find anyone in this category that had anything truly negative to say about it. Even if it works like a charm, those involved in dragging out the project, and driving up the costs, should be taken out behind the woodshed.

[Shawn 507]

I thought Air Force SOFs were going to the MH-47 or like model. Now this? While I have no dog in this fight, I didn't find it (that shown during the last airshow) all that roomie when compared to a CH-46/47.

[Hoverbug]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

I thought Air Force SOFs were going to the MH-47 or like model. Now this? While I have no dog in this fight, I didn't find it (that shown during the last airshow) all that roomie when compared to a CH-46/47.

Different mission. The Osprey is replacing the MH-53 in special ops while the HH-47 is replacing the MH/HH-60 for CSAR. The difference being the HH-47 may have to shoot its way out (hence the 4 or 5 miniguns) after picking up downed pilots in bad-guy country while the Osprey goes where the bad guys aint to insert or extract operators. The Osprey is only going to spend a third of the time in bad-guy country that the MH-53 does due to its speed, so it's not too surprising that it would be attractive to that community.

Another issue that may be taking place is that we've simply gotten comfortable with the legacy platforms that we have had for the last 45 years and institutional conservatism goes against trying something new. Interestingly enough, the Air Force was seriously considering an HH-47 for CSAR in 1962, but instead went with the HH-3 instead. 45 years later, we've come full circle.

[First Sgt]

Although this is not directly related to the pro/con of the article, I did have a chance to see one of these on the ramp at Hanscom AFB, MA last weekend! I was quite surprised to see it, as they don't usually have anything other than occasional visitors there. It was probably there for some type of electronics testing. It is quite a bird - would make a great diecast!

[Hoverbug]

Not to fuel the debate more, but I came across an interesting tidbit today. Apparently the 10 aircraft headed to Iraq aren't even fully mission capable. The original plan was to self-deploy but they were shipped instead. Turns out the reason is that the ice protection systems have still not been fixed after an Osprey was nearly lost over the Atlantic last year suffering from ice induced compressor stalls when self-deploying to Farnborough. So, we have built 100 plus airframes thus far at $100mil plus apiece and so far we only have 10 partially mission capable airframes. All of those other airframes will require major refits and/or rebuilds to enter the fleet.