MV-22 Osprey

[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.

[Josh]

"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."

This is a wonderful comeback, oh mystery man who used to work for me.

Yeah, your right... since me and my four "closest friends" sit back all day and login simultaneously with 5 to 25 IP's all coming from the Pentagon, Quantico or what have you... To the numerous e-mails I recieve from other people who are really only in my secret little circle of friends. Notice the one person who is pro-Osprey who has commented (on my forum) has been much more decent in his remarks then you have. I suppose that would mean that roy posted the link to my forum because one of my "close friends" told him to also right? You are a funny man!

The site invites all to chime in, obviously most of the registered users do not. What a revelation. Most of (not all) the users who have registered, did so as a show of support (now I am sure you will suggest that I have a tiny little support base of only 2 dozen people... go ahead, didnt mean to steal you thunder). I am sure you must be scanning my e-mail in box as well right? Since when does the number of posts represent the number of interested viewers? Very sad reasoning you display here. You go ahead and continue thinking that your empty comments actually offer something to the discussion. As I have said before, if there are so many lies or incomplete statements given then go right on ahead and refute them. That is what is encouraged on that forum, apparently you just dont believe so because there arent 100 supporters of the aircraft kicking down the door. Should I force them to then?

"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."

Not at all, but apparently it is more of a concern of mine than it has been of others. Your personal slanders do nothing to defend your position. The interest in this discussion is aparently no different here than many other places, turn from the aircraft to slander of people. That's okay, the lies you have already suggested about me are enough to make me lose interest in this thread. Go ahead and post another insulting comeback rather than stating your case. Don't count on a reply from me as one will not be given, you have displayed for all of us your motivation. Maybe after I leave you will suggest i was kicked off of this one too?

"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."

Wow you noticed something! Hooray for you! I am not generally prone to call anything a lie unless I know it to be a lie. So, here it goes... you reading still? ... I do not know of my site to be "filled with lies and incorrect statements." As I said, if I did, I would argue against those lies.

Who am I kidding, we were buddies, after all you worked for me (or so you say?) and I just loved to fraternize with junior Marines so you must know all about me and all about virtually all of my experiences.

"And then he says we should join his forum and post corrections. Adds by google. Hrmmm."

Umm, did you happen to notice that the forum software is FREE? Let me clue you in just in case you missed it... If I remove the Adds by Google, guess what, it is no longer free. Pretty rotten man I am for utilizing free software. I know, what a terrible way to try and communicate.

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

Great point... that's precisely why I got out. But you already knew that didnt you, we were very close. I am sure where ever you are now you must be the prized leader of the pack.

Enjoy your conversation I am sure it will last long and settle all of the lies and incomplete statements given by me and my "4 closest friends."

Josh- Out

[Gyrene@Heart]

Lets not hijack the thread. You’re taking this observation too personally. Just like Popasmoke.com, Military.com, and now your own website.

The fact remains your website has a lot of erroneous information on it and draws conclusions from innuendo. Historical documents that cite problems with the aircraft and the maintenance operating procedures are no longer accurate, but you treat them like current information.

These statements from your last post are excellent examples. You declared two Marines that work for/with each other as “fraternizing”. You declared us buddies. You suggested I lied about you. All of which are incorrect conclusions drawn from your assumptions based on the limited facts I posted.

You said yourself you are “not generally prone to call anything a lie unless I know it to be a lie.”

Perhaps it would be better if your basis was “I’m not generally prone to call anything a fact unless I know it to be a fact.”

Gyrene@Heart, out.

[roy]

It seems there is a former senior V-22 maintainer who is so upset about the V-22 that he quit the Corps and is trying to expose the truth, his name is Josh.

Then there is a unknown person who calls himself Gyreneheart who doesn't want to discuss Josh's concerns and makes a great, great effort to demean Josh and everyone who opposes the program. A Bell-Boeing rep?

I don't know, but please discuss the program.

[Chris]

Maj Janay’s article on the MV-22 in the most recent issue of the Gazette takes the correct line of debate. The MV-22 is coming and will replace the CH-46. We should now focus not on the technical details of the aircraft (unless they affect mission accomplishment), but on the tactical employ of the MV-22. Maj Janay’s article also points to an organizational flaw that will not be healed for some time. At the current time, the MV-22 community is a conglomeration of CH-46 pilots with a few fixed wing types. Until the community transitions to pilots without the baggage of their previous aircraft, the MV-22 will not achieve its true potential. As an example, Maj Janay’s first question, one of escort, assumes the MV-22 should transit to and from the objective at low altitude with attached escort. Using the MV-22 at low altitude regardless of the threat implies a doctrine hopelessly stuck in the past. The MV-22 is not a helicopter and should not be operated as such. The MV-22, whenever possible, should fly as high as possible to avoid three lethal threats: the ground, small arms, and man portable missiles. Escort close to the objective could then be carried out by fixed wing in transit and a combination of helicopter gunships and fixed wing at the objective. The only technical obstacle to prolonged periods of flight over 10,000’ MSL is the MV-22’s lack of cabin pressurization. That is a technical deficiency that is worth adding to the aircraft, whatever the cost, monetarily or in weight.

[roy]

The problem with adding a pressurized cabin is the V-22 has a very limited payload capability already, about one-third that of modern helicopters of the same size. If you add all the stuff a V-22 needs, like a pressurized cabin, kevlar flooring, a 50.cal gun, and a bigger cabin (its 25% smaller than the CH-46E) then it will have zero payload.

Here is a website with a lot of V-22 insider info. The author is a former Marine and a bit too harsh and nasty, but he has links that show the V-22s major shortcomings. www.G2mil.com/scandal.htm

[Herkco]

At $60m a copy (per AvWkST) the Corps received damn little. But it did 'give' Bell-Boeing the seeds for their smaller commercial model. Will the taxpayer get back any interest on that seed money? Will the Corps? Sixty million dollars. IKE was right.