MV-22 Osprey

[SWJED]

MV-22 Osprey - A multi-engine, dual-piloted, self-deployable, medium lift, vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) tiltrotor aircraft designed for combat, combat support, combat service support, and Special Operations missions worldwide. It will replace the Corps' aged fleet of CH-46E and CH-53D medium lift helicopters.

Unit Cost (Total Program Recurring Flyaway, Constant Year, FY94$) - $40.1M.

Is it a God-send or a lemon in consideration of how the potential operating environment (urban / small wars) has changed since the Osprey's conception?

[scwestusmc]

Having enjoyed a few "Old Corp" rides in a 46 three plus decades ago I think I would prefer the MV-22. At the rate the bad guys are shooting down choppers in Iraq (likely with shoulder fired SAM's) 300mph at tree top level sounds like a good action plan.

[Banshee]

Clearly the USMC had to do something about an aging fleet of transport helos and made a decision to take a technological leap. I am not a pilot, but know ones that have flown the MV-22 and they are amazed at how it flies. No denying it is leap forward but it is not ready for prime time and we have no alternative at this point and we are out of time on replacing the 46. No doubt in level flight the Osprey has advantages, but eventually you have to land and at that point on descent and final touch down it is a bigger target. Albatross or not, what else is a viable alternative? We are at where we are at. The real question is will the Marine Corps deploy it to Iraq as scheduled?

[scwestusmc]

"Not ready for prime time" ?????????? What does that mean? Why? At this point it may be the most tested aircraft in the history of the planet.

[Banshee]

"Not ready for prime time" ?????????? What does that mean? Why? At this point it may be the most tested aircraft in the history of the planet.

Unless something has changed in the last few weeks it is currently restricted to hard surface take off and landings as they work out some issues. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of its readiness to deploy now. It is a technological jump and will require time to work out problems. The question is how much time in the face of an aging fleet of transports. Lose one in Iraq and we lose the program. Then what?

[SWJED]

54 Ospreys Grounded Due to Computer Chip Glitch - 12 Feb. Stars and Stripes.

Naval Air Systems Command has grounded 46 Marine and eight Air Force V-22 Ospreys due to a computer problem, and they could remain grounded for weeks, officials said.

The MV-22 Ospreys were being grounded due to a faulty computer chip that helps allow backup controls to kick in should a Flight Control Computer malfunction, according to a Corps news release...

Officials are now inspecting every Osprey to determine which have faulty computer chips, said James Darcy, a spokesman for the Osprey program. He estimated the majority of Ospreys have the bad computer chips, but he could not ballpark how many aircraft that translates to...

[roy]

A former senior V-22 maintainer is so upset about what he sees are V-22 flaws that he started his own forum. http://v22forum.com/

It has attracted a lot of insider comments, mostly negative.

[Gyrene@Heart]

This web site is frequented by about 2 dozen people. They are content in their persecution of the MV-22 program and the Marine Corps. They are also convinced they know things that other people don't. The entire government is staffed by dummies, and if they were still in the Marine Corps, this wouldn't be happening.

This is a free internet, so I feel people can believe what they choose. I certainly do

Their facts are selective quotes from "official documentation", which are in reality "spun" as they selectively quote them. Were they to continue in their quotation of the same official documentation less selectively, they would find supporting their conclusions a little harder. The really ironic thing is the website claims to be a "no spin zone".

Mr J. Brannon was kicked off of Military.Com, along with his primary contributor, Mr C. Meyers, formerly of G2.mil. They commonly see single facts and then field conclusions with the same evidence that brought those Duke Lacrosse players to justice recently. The shame is that former SSgt Brannon is recognized by the active duty Marines still at New River as "a good joe". For the most part he was well liked, and his comments are not completely unfounded, they are just incomplete. He's drawing conclusions about the maintenance department when he spent his entire career in only two workcenters while he worked on V22.

There are no entries on their website of any Marines who have actually flown on an Osprey, or any quotes from any Marine grunts who have been in contact with the aircraft. Mr Brannon's knowledge is strictly limited to early Block A aircraft, and even that is limited to the beginning of their fielding. The rest he and his contributors comment on is supposition of Block B aircraft, which he apparently knows little to nothing about. Several comments are outright wrong about any helicopter (H60/EH101) matching any MV-22 parameters of range, speed, or payload.

A point to be made here that block A V22's only exist at New River at VMMT-204. The VMMs have a couple of block As, but they only have them as long as it takes to get them replaced by block Bs. Eventually, all the block A V22s will get re-worked into block B and eventually block C aircraft. Remember the D-CUP, or the SR&M on the 46? Must have been flawed from the genesis of the idea, we just didn't have forums back then to explain it to us.

I can only imagine that if this was 1966, this would be a "CH46forum.com" website explaining that the frog is failing miserably in VietNam, the tandem rotors are unproven technology, its too expensive, that 3 channel AFCS systems are too complex to maintain, and we should spend that money on more H34's right now.

[Josh]

This web site is frequented by about 2 dozen people.

Where do you get your info from?

They are content in their persecution of the MV-22 program and the Marine Corps. They are also convinced they know things that other people don't. The entire government is staffed by dummies, and if they were still in the Marine Corps, this wouldn't be happening.

Interesting analysis. Um, well... I chose to seperate so that would be pretty naive of me to think wouldnt it? Anyone interested in what my forum is about can easily find the answer by reading it.

http://www.v22forum.com/v22forum/for...sts.asp?TID=13

Their facts are selective quotes from "official documentation", which are in reality "spun" as they selectively quote them. Were they to continue in their quotation of the same official documentation less selectively, they would find supporting their conclusions a little harder. The really ironic thing is the website claims to be a "no spin zone".

Do you mean like the facts that you supposedly pronounce below?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr J. Brannon was kicked off of Military.Com (not true at all, in fact anyone can discover how false this statement is by logging on to that forum and reading for themselves), along with his primary contributor, Mr C. Meyers, formerly of G2.mil. They commonly see single facts and then field conclusions with the same evidence that brought those Duke Lacrosse players to justice recently. The shame is that former SSgt Brannon is recognized by the active duty Marines still at New River as "a good joe". (This is a shame why? Maybe the people that actually knew me also knew my character and motivation, I guess you'd like it if I was slandered by everyone at the River that way attacks on my statements would be eaiser, is that it?) For the most part he was well liked, and his comments are not completely unfounded, they are just incomplete(Well, complete them then!). He's drawing conclusions about the maintenance department when he spent his entire career in only two workcenters while he worked on V22. (Um, are you pretending to know me or something? My involvement in the V-22 community is spelled out clearly here:

http://www.v22forum.com/v22forum/for...osts.asp?TID=1

I would think that working as a flight line supervior, maintenance controller, phase SNCOIC and CDQAR on MV-22B aircraft might at least offer me some sort of foundation to qualify my remaks with? Apparently you believe maintenance Marines are required to work in several other work centers?)

There are no entries on their website of any Marines who have actually flown on an Osprey, or any quotes from any Marine grunts who have been in contact with the aircraft. (Well, I have flown on it. My comments are generally based on false/misleading reporting and maintenance difficiencies, perhaps you would prefer that a bunch of Grunts comment on this instead of someone who actually worked in maintenance? Either way, come one come all, the grunts are welcomed to post on V22Forum as well.) Mr Brannon's knowledge is strictly limited to early Block A aircraft, and even that is limited to the beginning of their fielding. The rest he and his contributors comment on is supposition of Block B aircraft, which he apparently knows little to nothing about. (Once again, read my posts, what I comment on are maintainability shortcomings that are not at all unique to Block A only aircraft. What other may post about is all on them.) Several comments are outright wrong about any helicopter (H60/EH101) matching any MV-22 parameters of range, speed, or payload. (Once again, I do not generally comment about other aircraft, however if you say that other peoples comments are wrong then post your comments as to why, I am sure they would love to correspond with you about it.)

A point to be made here that block A V22's only exist at New River at VMMT-204. The VMMs have a couple of block As, but they only have them as long as it takes to get them replaced by block Bs. Eventually, all the block A V22s will get re-worked into block B and eventually block C aircraft.(Do you mean like all of the LRIP aircraft that still sit in long term preservation at New River?) Remember the D-CUP, or the SR&M on the 46? Must have been flawed from the genesis of the idea, we just didn't have forums back then to explain it to us. (Yeah, I remember the DCU Upgrades on 46's... it was a great idea. I am sure it cost just as much and was just as critical as the re-design re-designs that plague the V-22 every year. Great comparison!)

I can only imagine that if this was 1966, this would be a "CH46forum.com" website explaining that the frog is failing miserably in VietNam, the tandem rotors are unproven technology, its too expensive, that 3 channel AFCS systems are too complex to maintain, and we should spend that money on more H34's right now. (Well CH-47's are still in production so, so much for the "unproven design." The time and resources it took to field tandem rotor helo's do not even dent the checkbook register of V-22 expenses. Many V-22 supporters love to suggest that this is new technology, well I guess a half century of R&D, several Operational Evaluations, re-design, after re-design, after re-design... yeah they are just like one another. Go do some homework and tell everyone how many years passed and how much money was spent in the developement of tandem rotor helo's. Then when you are done with that, do the same for your beloved Osprey. The comparison will certainly prove to be erouneous.

Thanks for allowing me to post here folks. As I said, my intentions are clearly stated. this post was not an attempt at promoting my site, after all I did not start this thread. It erks me to no end though when someone who does not even know me assumes to know all about me even when my own publicly stated positions do not support their statements about me. More info from the other side of the Opsrey fence would be represented on my forum only if more poeple from the other side of the fence would speak up. No one has been banned or discouraged from contributing. it is silly to suggest that it is a one sided site when only the views of one position have been represented. This will not change unless people like Mr. Gyrene decide to post all of the info that we are supposedly neglecting to share. Then again, you might be better off going to the 0311 forum to get all of the facts about the Osprey. I can be found at V22Forum.com for future correspondence... thanks for hearing my rebuttle.)

Josh

[Gyrene@Heart]

I think he just made my point better than I could.

First, I got my info from the V22forum.com. Server requests mean crap, and everyone knows it. He was counting on the ignorance of the reader, just like his website does. There are 28 registered users (up 1 from yesterday). Of the 179 posts on that website as of 2040 EST on 12 April, 48% of them are from Mr Brannon and Mr Meyers from G2.Mil, (that bastion of truthfulness!). Over 60% of the registered usernames haven’t even posted a comment. Fully 83% of all the posts are from Mr Brannon and his four 4 closest friends agreeing with each other.

Second, I’m not pretending to know him, I do know him. I used to work for him.

He acts like he’s the only guy who’s ever worked on V-22s who had a problem with some of the programmatic decisions and procedures we use. He should take a number like the rest of us.

Notice he does not deny that his website is filled with lies and incorrect statements, but claims he isn’t responsible for the posting of others. And then he says we should join his forum and post corrections. Adds by google. Hrmmm.

You learn as much from bad leadership as you do from good leadership, I guess.