Oh Great... The Insurgents Won't Even Have To Shoot These Down...

[WillyT]

They seem to fall out of the sky and kill Marines all on their own!

<snip>

The Marine Corps said yesterday that the V-22 Osprey, a hybrid aircraft with a troubled past, will be sent to Iraq this September, where it will see combat for the first time.

But because of a checkered safety record in test flights, the V-22 will be kept on a short leash.

The Pentagon has placed so many restrictions on how it can be used in combat that the plane — which is able to drop troops into battle like a helicopter and then speed away from danger like an airplane — could have difficulty fulfilling the Marines’ longstanding mission for it.

In Iraq, the V-22 will begin to replace the Vietnam-era helicopters that are increasingly facing enemy fire. The limitations on the V-22, which cost $80 million apiece, mean it cannot evade enemy fire with the same maneuvers and sharp turns used by helicopter pilots.

As a result, the craft could be more vulnerable to attack, and may result in the Marines keeping it out of the thick of battle, using it instead for less dangerous tasks.

<snip>

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/14/business/14osprey.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Still pushing for the goddamned contrtactors i see!

:banghead:

[wakeme2008]

1. Maybe I am OLD School but I do not see a spot for waist gunners to

protect the side of the copter as it is landing...

[eppur_se_muova]

14. No nose turret either. Only a tail gun on an extended ramp.

Strangely enough, that info has disappeared from Wikipedia since yesterday ...

Maybe this is a 'workaround' ...

[Spinzonner]

2. Hey, it served it's purpose

Wasted money to defense contractors

:sarcasm:

[whistle]

3. Holy shit, this is a Republican boondoggle if there ever was one

....rammed through by the Pentagon fascists without the required modifications identified three years before. More death traps for our troops just like unarmored Humvees not meant for combat patrols were used for that purpose once they were put into operation in the war. :wtf:

<snip>
Why the V-22 Osprey is Unsafe

G2mil has attempted to expose the largest scandal in US military history for several years. A total of eight articles about the unsafe and costly V-22 Osprey have appeared, one in the last issue while the others can be read by following this link: V-22 articles. In early 2004, an outside aviation expert briefed top Generals at Headquarters Marine Corps about lingering safety concerns over the V-22. This copy was provided by a concerned former Marine Corps officer:
Lingering Safety Concerns Over V-22

by XXXXXXXXXXX

from XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

12 December 2003

After three years of careful study and analysis of the V-22 following the tragic crash at Marana, Arizona in March 2000, several safety-related issues continue to concern me about the safety of flight of V-22 within a combat or hostile environment. The significant mission advantages V-22 offers have been addressed elsewhere; the focus of this paper is limited to safety concerns that remain after completion of all modifications implemented since the last mishap at New River.

From my point of view, there are six critical issues whose operational consequences need to be understood by decision-makers as these may affect the future operational safety of this aircraft and the survivability of air-crews in a combat environment. The six issues are:

1. The V-22’s lack of an auto-rotation capability, or even a demonstrated all engine inoperative safe landing capability, remains cause for concern. V-22 fails to meet the ORD threshold requirement for a survivable emergency landing with all engines inoperative from a large portion of its operating envelope.

2. V-22 flight characteristics in VRS (vortex ring state) are problematic for roll control and the aircraft is susceptible to un-commanded rolling as a result of saturation in the roll channel of the flight control system when the aircraft is operated into VRS. This aircraft response to VRS phenomenon is drastically different than that of any conventional helicopter.

3. The V-22 is prone to roll PIO (pilot-induced oscillation) in helicopter mode during high gain pilot tasks such as shipboard operations, precision hover in confined areas, or precision hover/landing in obscured visibility.

4. The V-22’s high vibratory loads, coupled with a very flexible structural design and complex hydraulic system, is problematic for hydraulic, electrical, and mechanical systems and is likely to lead to high failure rates for these systems. Many such failures have safety implications.

5. The V-22’s susceptibility to wake or tip vortices from other aircraft is problematic for roll control and can result in un-commanded rolling of the aircraft. At low altitude, this could lead to a loss of an aircraft.

6. The V-22’s high down-wash velocity field has the potential to produce significant detrimental effects on hovering operations in desert environments or over water.


The six issues are discussed in the body of this paper. These should be closely monitored in future operational testing and evaluation, and corrective actions taken where possible through equipment changes, training, and changes in tactics, procedures and techniques. Many of these concerns, however, are inherent in the V-22 design and may be difficult to extenuate. Understanding the substance of the issues is key to understanding the operational consequences.

<MORE>

http://www.g2mil.com/V-22safety.htm

[Redstone]

6. It wouldn't have had NEAR this many problems if they'd had the sense to tilt the wing instead

of the engines. Stupid, stupid, stupid design.

Redstone

[whistle]

8. It is the engines which tilt, that is really dumb especially having

...them on the ends of the wings. That puts tremendous stresses on the entire aircraft. I guess the Pentagon wants them commissioned in war in hopes of having them destroyed rather than to admit they made a blunder with the V-22 Osprey. Too bad U.S. soldiers will die in the process.

[Redstone]

11. Oh, you got that right. Absolutely.

Redstone

[Redstone]

4. As a helicopter, it's a really lousy airplane. As an airplane, it's a really lousy helicopter.

Redstone

[karlrschneider]

5. Gives a whole new meaning to 'boondoggle'. More at this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x654265

[SledDriver]

7. Ooh! Makes a NICE, BIG target!

n/t

[Strelnikov_]

12. "the V-22 must land at speeds as slow as nine miles an hour and in a fairly straight line."

A 2005 Pentagon report said these limitations “may prove insufficient” in protecting the V-22 from ground fire. As a result, that Pentagon evaluation said the V-22 was suited only for low- and medium-threat environments, and is not “operationally effective” in high-threat environments.

Hell, give Otis the town drunk an RPG and he could shoot down one of these things.

[annabanana]

9. It is clearly a giraffe. .

A horse put together by a committee. .

[Strelnikov_]

10. "In March 2006, a computer problem led an idling V-22 to suddenly take off on its own

It then slammed into the ground, breaking off its right wing. All 54 V-22’s were grounded for weeks in February because of a faulty computer chip."

What a litany of horrors.

In preparation for deployment, the Pentagon ran tests last year in the New Mexico desert, similar to the climate of Iraq. In January, the Pentagon wrote about frequent failures with various parts and systems. The reason: “Extended exposure to the desert operating environment.”

Because of these problems, Mr. Coyle, the former Pentagon weapons tester, predicted the Marines will use the V-22 to ferry troops from one relatively safe spot to another, like a flying truck.

And at $80 M/ea, what a complete waste of resources.

Each V-22 costs about three times the price of a modern helicopter and nearly the same as a fighter jet.

"They are just sitting around a desk and crunching numbers,” he added. “Go talk to the Marines. The V-22 has come of age. The first marine it saves makes it worth what we paid for it.

Oh, really? Wonder how many people would be saved if we spent that $55 B on national health care? Cleaning the air of fossil fuels?

Unfuckingbelieveable

[Redstone]

13. And how many C-130s could we buy for $80 mil? Proven design, unbreakable,

can go anywhere and do anything.

Redstone

[dysfunctional press]

15. how does it handle sand...?

isn't that what's tearing up our machinery at a faster rate than expected?

[Redstone]

16. I'd guess poorly, since it does everything else poorly.

Redstone

[dysfunctional press]

17. well, at least they'll be able to stamp "combat-tested" on the file...

btw- do you think that these might be being positioned for possible use into iran?

[Redstone]

18. Absolutely not. The Generals will mutiny if they're told to attack Iran.

Redstone

[dysfunctional press]

19. too bad nobody thought of that before going into iraq.

nothing would be more fitting than a military coup-de-tat of this mis-administration

[Redstone]

20. I'm not talking about a coup. Just a mutiny. And we'd never know about it, either.

They'll just quietly refuse to cary out the plans, and it will hit the history books in about twenty years.

Redstone

[dysfunctional press]

21. we'd know something- i don't see lil' boots taking something like that very well.

unless the guy that carries the football is part of the mutiny, we'd probably read about it in the papers the next day.

[Redstone]

22. Possibly; possibly indeed. Unfortunately for us, we live in interesting times.

Redstone

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.