[PappyB]

Anyone read this story? Kind of sounds like the airborne equivalent of the Bradley I hope for the troops' sake that the article is overly dramatic, but the lack of a forward firing heavy gun does seem like a problem... as does the survivability. (and I also though the statement that more than 30% of the harrier fleet had crashed was surprising... but that's since 1971, and the number of total harriers isn't given.)

Be a cool looking piece of diecast kit I would think though (Osprey).

[Hoverbug]

Originally Posted by PappyB

Anyone read this story? Kind of sounds like the airborne equivalent of the Bradley I hope for the troops' sake that the article is overly dramatic, but the lack of a forward firing heavy gun does seem like a problem... as does the survivability. (and I also though the statement that more than 30% of the harrier fleet had crashed... but that's since 1971, and the number of total harriers isn't given.)

Be a cool looking piece of diecast kit I would think though (Osprey).

It was a pretty biased story, though there is some valid criticism there. The business about the gun is a red herring because if it comes in under fire it's toast anyway - gun or no gun - because it can't manuever well and its a huge target and it's nearly impossible to hit it without impacting some sub-system (of which many are critical). The whole operational employment doctrine of the Osprey is using its quantative leap in range to bypass enemy concentrations that couldn't be bypassed with the CH-46. However, it can't be operated in a serious air defense environment (of course, that holds true for any transport) and can't be used in contested LZs (again, the CH-46s weren't hugely successful in doing that either). In other words, it's a great aircraft for current operations where you can park a UAV overhead unseen to make sure the bad guys aren't going to be waiting for you, but it is a useless asset when going up against a well organized enemy or in fighting Vietnam-type operations where the enemy has the leg up in intelligence.

It is worth noting that the unit currently deploying to Iraq is taking only 10 aircraft, when the squadron complement is 16. Of the 100+ airframes completed, only 10 are of the latest mod standard to meet deployment criteria. At the very least, it has not been a well managed program. Only time will tell if the investment was worth it. Provided we don't have to take it into Iran or North Korea and stick with less formidable opponents, it should probably do pretty well.

[FormerViperDriver]

Personally, I'm fed-up with the anti-Osprey crowd. They are a bunch of know-nothing, and the press, as usual, is looking for sensationalist stories even where there isn't one.

What Hoverbug says is right. I would emphasize even more the basic fact that all helicopters, bar none, are extremely vulnerable to air defenses (and just basic ground fire, even AK-47s and RPGs - anyone seen or read "Blackhawk down"?). The Osprey is no exception, and certainly is more vulnerable than an AH-64 let's say, but I'm not sure when compared to a UH-60 or CH-46. In any event, our huge losses in helicopters in all previous conflicts (Vietnam in particular) point to a simple fact of life: going into an opposed LZ with helicopters is a very bad idea. I believe the Osprey is finally forcing tactics to change in order to take this into account. Its range and speed will make it easier to bypass tough spots, but as Hoverbug says, this assumes good intel about where those are.

Despite all the negative press (and despite relatively poor program management), the Osprey has has a remarkably accident-free development, by historical standards. The F-16 is a great jet, and never got such bad publicity, but I remember the years in the early 80s when we used to lose an entire squadron (24 jets) or more a year (around one third were fatal accidents), and that was just in the US (more were lost in other nations). But a lack of historical perspective is so typically American, I'm not surprised by all this.

And oh, by the way, the Bradley turned out to be a great vehicle in actual battle (including during friendly fire incidents during Desert Storm), far more survivable than originally thought even by the military (and that was even before the additional armor was added in the late 80s/early 90s, though sacrificing the river-crossing capability which was more theoretical than anything anyway). That should tell you something...

FVD

[mess89]

I haven't read the article but I am an Osprey fan. I think vulnerability is all about tactics used. A great example is the lower losses for marine AH-1Ws vs. army AH-64s in Iraq. They are testing a 7.62 minigun based defense system for the osprey. Looks cool. See below.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...&modele=jdc_34

[no4mkit]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

Personally, I'm fed-up with the anti-Osprey crowd. They are a bunch of know-nothing, and the press, as usual, is looking for sensationalist stories even where there isn't one.

Well put FVD - fully agree! If the press we have today was around in WWII they'd have opposed the P-51 Mustang when several crashed inexplicably in early development. Wonder how that war would have ended if the DOD had listened.

[PappyB]

Originally Posted by no4mkit

Well put FVD - fully agree! If the press we have today was around in WWII they'd have opposed the P-51 Mustang when several crashed inexplicably in early development. Wonder how that war would have ended if the DOD had listened.

I hear all your points, but it's still hard to believe the story is 100% BS. When someone like Cheney tried so hard to kill the program, it just makes me think there something fishy going on. And those cost overruns are out of control -- though, I know, not exactly new when it comes to new military hardware. The lack of autorotation does appear to be a significant issue, too -- at least all those helis in Vietnam had a good chance at a successful crash landing, no?

I'm not one to get embroiled in political debates about this stuff, just thought it was interesting -- the story also says the bird hasn't been adequately tested in sandy environments yet off it goes. I do hope the safety concerns proove to be unfounded.

At least the pilots seem to like the thing, I'm sure they could have easily got one to sound off on it (off the record) if the pilots agreed with the main theme of the story... if it is indeed as unsafe and untested an aircraft as is presented, you would think finding a pilot or two to agree wouldn't be that hard (again off the record).

[Hoverbug]

Originally Posted by PappyB

I hear all your points, but it's still hard to believe the story is 100% BS. When someone like Cheney tried so hard to kill the program, it just makes me think there something fishy going on. And those cost overruns are out of control -- though, I know, not exactly new when it comes to new military hardware. The lack of autorotation does appear to be a significant issue, too -- at least all those helis in Vietnam had a good chance at a successful crash landing, no?

I'm not one to get embroiled in political debates about this stuff, just thought it was interesting -- the story also says the bird hasn't been adequately tested in sandy environments yet off it goes. I do hope the safety concerns proove to be unfounded.

At least the pilots seem to like the thing, I'm sure they could have easily got one to sound off on it (off the record) if the pilots agreed with the main theme of the story... if it is indeed as unsafe and untested an aircraft as is presented, you would think finding a pilot or two to agree wouldn't be that hard (again off the record).

I think the debate has gotten too wrapped up in the hardware question. The bigger question is whether or not the technology will support the mission that is being asked of it.

Part of the problem stems from the Marine Corps' selling of the Osprey as a replacement for its assault helicopters. It is not an assault helicopter and is clearly more vulnerable than an assault helicopter, but its mission profile and tactical employment are wholly different than an assault helicopter. It doesn't autorotate because it is not a helicopter, and we shouldn't expect that it will autorotate any more than a C-130 will. The Marines had to sell the program to a skeptical audience by playing it off as the logical improvement of existing systems when it is in fact a whole different tactical approach as well as being a fundamentally new aeronautical technology. The unfortunate outcome of that salesmanship is that it set everyone's expectations that this would be able to do what an assault helicopter does (i.e. go into a potentially contested landing zone). If the Osprey comes under fire, it is already a tactical failure, because its operational employment is to put the troops where the enemy isn't. With UAVs providing real-time imagery, unlike Vietnam, this is not an unreasonable tactical expectation, provided it can occur in a situation where we have air supremecy.

In my perspective, the debate shouldn't be so much about whether the Osprey should be acquired, but rather that by doing so the Marines have left a gap in their operational capability. If the Osprey can't be flown into a hot LZ and the CH-46s are on their way out, then what are they supposed to use to fulfill this mission? The Osprey is also not ideal aircraft to deploy close to the front as it requires a fairly significant logistal chain and lots of specialized equipment. It is great that they now have the ability to rapidly deploy 300 miles behind enemy lines, but the UH-1Y is not a substantially large enough aircraft to provide the close-in assault mobility that is required for non-littoral operations.

[Rush104]

[quote=PappyB;108039]I hear all your points, but it's still hard to believe the story is 100% BS. When someone like Cheney tried so hard to kill the program, it just makes me think there something fishy going on.

I haven't kept up with the triumphs and tribulations of the Osprey program, but I agree that when Dick Cheney tried to kill the program, something must have been really wrong with it.
He killed the A-12 (rightly so) when it was proven that it wasn't going to be the great attack aircraft it was promoted to be. True, the Navy got stuck with the F-18 as the A-6 replacement, but it is still a better alternative to what the A-12 would have been.

[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"...

[Hoverbug]

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"...

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.