Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should We Kill The Osprey?  
User currently offlineAirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 6
Posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3496 times:

By all accounts (lack) of performance, safety and reliability, cost over runs and delays, fatal test crashes and being butt ugly, should the Osprey program be canceled?

How about a new concept cargo/troop carrier ala the JSF F-35B, with fans instead of the extreme asymmetrical pseudo helicopter props? STOVL should work fine for it's mission. This would satisfy the congressman that are supporting the pork barrel project. For my tax money, I'd rather see the USAF buy a CH-53 dervative.

Some good reading. http://www.sci.fi/~fta/boyd_books.htm

I realize this is a continuation of this post. Usaf COL Riccioni On The Flawed V-22... (by AirRyan Apr 7 2006 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

But the subject still merits discussion.

Riccioni also critisizes the F-22 here:

http://www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-050301-fa22.html


Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMigFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3481 times:

I have no real evidence to back my opinion, but YES. The word "constipated" comes to mind when I think of the Osprey's development.

/M


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16694 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3470 times:

On the contrary, I think the Army should buy Ospreys to equip their Aviation Brigades.

I think the Army should buy Ospreys for the Aviation Brigades that work with the Airborne Units (82nd, 101st Divisons, 173rd Airborne Brigade), 10th Mountain Division and the Stryker Brigades in Germany, Korea, Alaska and Hawaii.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3466 times:

Yes.

And all future attempts at composite aircraft unless a totally new technology comes along. By "new" I mean something other than aerodynamic lift.

These screwball aircraft have been attempted over and over for more than fifty years. Not one of them would ever have gone into production on its own merits were it not for a procurement process insulated from all taxpayer accountability.

On the other hand, if we continue producing aeronautical hermaphrodites, I have plans for a combination submarine and timber harvester I'd like to show the DoD.

Airplanes fly fast horizontally.
Helicopters fly vertically.

But that is just my opinion.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineBHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3428 times:

I'll vote no on this. Some day we'll need to run a mission like the hostage rescue again and nothing fits the mission better.

Disclaimer - I'm not particularly neutral on this as I did work on program.



Where are all of my respected members going?
User currently offlineJarheadK5 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 216 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3426 times:

IMO the Osprey should have stayed dead when it was canceled the first time around, and the Corps should have bought an H-60 variant for the HMM mission while a new medium-lift helicopter replacement was spec'd.

Unfortunately, at this point, there's too much invested in the aircraft to just cancel it. Again, IMO.



Cleared to Contact
User currently offlineKukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3359 times:

Quoting AirSpare (Thread starter):
should the Osprey program be canceled?

Not till after Farnborough.  Wink



Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3322 times:

Quoting AirSpare (Thread starter):
This would satisfy the congressman that are supporting the pork barrel project.

I should probably keep quiet, and just let this thread die. But I can't.

There are three 20th century conspiracy theories that refuse to die:

1) There is an alien spaceship hidden in Area 51.

2) There was a second gunman helping Oswald in Dealy Plaza.

3) There are congressmen and senators keeping the V-22 alive solely for political reasons.

The A-12 Avenger (the largest DOD contract ever canceled) could not be saved despite it's strong Texas and Missouri congressional representation.

The Comanche could not be saved despite the combined lobbying by Boeing and United Technology Sikorsky.

The V-22 has been investigated and reviewed over the past 20 years more than all the current Supream Court candidates combined. Yet it still survives. Think about it.

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3303 times:

At this point the Marines better get some V-22's for the money they have wasted into this pork-barrell pet-project, but I adamently encourage the majority of the buy to be scraped and the MH-60S or H-92 be purchased for the remainder and bulk of the USMC medium lift helo fleet. With the USAF and USA facing huge cuts to their budgets, I just do not see how the Marines can afford to buy all of the Osprey's that they want when they need the CH-53K, the H-1 upgrades, all of the most expensive JSF deriatives in the F-35B's, not to mention the remainder of their C-130 fleet needing KC-130J's, and don't even get me started on the EA-6B's needing to be replaced by EA-18G's... and that's just the Air Wing!

The Osprey is simply not worth the price when you can get 2 if not 3 MH-60S's for every one V-22 when you have all of those other necessary programs needing money, too.


User currently offlineJarheadK5 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 216 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3297 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8):
I just do not see how the Marines can afford to buy all of the Osprey's that they want

They're not getting all they want. IIRC, the present buy barely gives a one-for-one swap with the current 46 fleet. Originally, the Corps wanted to replace the 53D's with Ospreys and have a few more VMM squadrons to throw into the deployment cycle. Now, it's starting to look like the Delta squadrons will fly their aircraft to AMARC and museums, and case their colors. Especially if the buy is cut further...



Cleared to Contact
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3193 times:

Quoting AirSpare (Thread starter):
Should We Kill The Osprey?

Yes; before a heck of a lot of our service men and women die because of it.

Don't get me wrong, I think that this is a great concept with poor implementation. The notion of an aircraft that offers the best of both worlds is a very cool idea, but technology just isn't there. The issues related to the rotorwash in steep approaches is going to pop up again when this aircraft enters operational service.


User currently offlineJarheadK5 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 216 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3191 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 10):
The issues related to the rotorwash in steep approaches

Just to clarify:
The issue is called "Vortex Ring State", not rotorwash. Yes, both are referring to moving air, but they're different.



Cleared to Contact
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3171 times:

Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 11):
The issue is called "Vortex Ring State", not rotorwash. Yes, both are referring to moving air, but they're different.

I stand corrected - thank you.


User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3148 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 10):
The notion of an aircraft that offers the best of both worlds is a very cool idea,

This is the problem. It is emphatically not 'the best' of both worlds. It will not operate vertically as well as a helicopter. It will not fly horizontally as well as an airplane.

It is the WORST of both worlds.

That is the crux of the argument against such hybrid or composite designs. They do a little of each, only with great difficulty and staggering expense.

What would the pricetag of the Osprey program have bought in CH-47s and C-130s?



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11445 posts, RR: 76
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3124 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 13):
What would the pricetag of the Osprey program have bought in CH-47s and C-130s?

Neither of which can operate off of LH platforms in any useful capacity or number.

You have another way of looking at it. It flies faster and farther than any helicopter with a comparable useful load, and it has vertol capability unavailable in any comparable sized fixed wing aircraft. It has unique capabilities and it is escortable by AV-8/F-35Bs operating off the same platforms and gives the fleet stand off capability, along with the LCACs, that it hasn't had before keeping the biggest vulnerable vessels farther away from the coast and potential enemy fire.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8):
With the USAF and USA facing huge cuts to their budgets, I just do not see how the Marines can afford to buy all of the Osprey's that they want when they need the CH-53K, the H-1 upgrades, all of the most expensive JSF deriatives in the F-35B's, not to mention the remainder of their C-130 fleet needing KC-130J's, and don't even get me started on the EA-6B's needing to be replaced by EA-18G's... and that's just the Air Wing!

You just described the "Great Train Wreck" that planners have been warning about since the 90's which has run into conflict with war funding. We're going to have to raise the stakes here with a national program.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3093 times:

Quoting a European columnist from about 10 years ago:

The Jeep is a horrible road car, rough in ride and prone to flip over.

The Jeep is also a poor replacement for a off road motorcycle, it is to wide to navigate narrow trails and to heavy to cross soft surfaces.

Yet despite these short commings, the Jeep is a popular vechicle with sales increasing every year. New uses for this unique vechicle are also continuosly being discovered.

This is the same case for the hybrid airplane - helicopter tiltrotor aircraft...

Every month or so someone starts an V-22 Osprey thread similar to this one. Each time responses to the thread regurgitate the same statements made by the multitude of "experts" that populate the internet. Most of these "experts" have never touched a tiltrotor aircraft, let alone pilot, fly or work on one.

Part of the enjoyment of this site is the freedom to express perceptions opinions openly, regardless of actual personal experience. But out of curiosity, has anyone responding to this thread had direct personal experience with tiltrotor aircraft? Not a friend or aquaintence etc, but actual personal experience (working on, flying, riding).

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineJarheadK5 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 216 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3074 times:

Quoting CTR (Reply 15):
But out of curiosity, has anyone responding to this thread had direct personal experience with tiltrotor aircraft? Not a friend or aquaintence etc, but actual personal experience (working on, flying, riding).

Yep.



Cleared to Contact
User currently offlinePhatAlbert From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 113 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3064 times:

it does have its pros and cons.. i mean they are starting a new type of aircraft there are going to be flaws etc. i am neutral on this part... there has been quit a few accidents that have hurt the osprey reputation but then again it was new to the crew you got to learn somehow... but tottally trashing the concept i believe wouldnt hurt.. there are plenty of other aircraft exp. helos that can do the same... ide rather have a blackhawk come and get me than a bad rep osprey... but im neutral.. and some of you peeps know heck of alot more than i do.. and some maybe right... but in this being my own opinion thats how i stand...Neautral


**Isaac**
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3028 times:

Quoting CTR (Reply 15):
The Jeep is also a poor replacement for a off road motorcycle, it is to wide to navigate narrow trails and to heavy to cross soft surfaces.

Yet despite these short commings, the Jeep is a popular vechicle with sales increasing every year. New uses for this unique vechicle are also continuosly being discovered.

This is the same case for the hybrid airplane - helicopter tiltrotor aircraft...

Sorry, absolutely irrelevant example.

A Jeep IS a car.

It is a car with four wheel drive, a higher ground clearance, and a funny-shaped body, but a car nevertheless. It incorporates ABSOLUTELY NO motorcycle technology, and the entire point of my post is aircraft with CROSSOVER technology.

Now if you want an automotive example you'd have to go back to the 1960s and a vehicle called the Bearcat. I don't remember who manufactured it, it was powered by an air cooled Lincoln V-4 engine like some arc welders. It had four wheels but the front two were, in motorcycle fashion, on a fork which was steered with a pair of hydraulic cylinders. Thus it actually had crossover technology and can be used as illustration in this case.

Yes, I do have a bit of experience with the Bearcat. I found the following:

1. It was not capable of being made street legal.
2. On roads it did not do as well as any car you can name. A VW beetle was a better troop transport.
3. Offroad, while it could climb a hill I would not have attempted in my '39 Dodge pickup, it could not traverse a hillside without tipping over and it was very difficult to drive down a hill.

The big problem was that when you steered the front wheels to any kind of angle, the CG, which was fairly high, shifted laterally to the edges of the polygon described by the wheels in contact with the ground. Steering brought the outside front wheel closer to the centerline of the aft half of the vehicle. Add a slight lateral G-load because you are changing direction and it would tip over.

A true hybrid vehicle and a resounding flop. Seen one lately.

I'm not dogging the Osprey itself, it may be a wonderful execution of the design goals. I'm not picking on the Osprey team or the warriors who crew them.

It is the very concept of marrying fixed and rotary wing technology that I deem to be invalid, ill-considered and utterly unnecessary.

Would you really want to ride a thousand miles into combat in the back of this thing? I've ridden a thou in the back of a C-130 on a canvas troopseat. Not a lot of fun but I arrived in okay shape. I've ridden in the back of helos to the limits of their radius-of-action and I think the relatively short range is merciful, it still exceeds the endurance of some people.

I believe the pilot workload just in flying this aircraft is going to lead to a high accident rate fifty years from now if we keep it. It will never be as easy to fly as a fixed wing or even as a helicopter because of the transition and the compromises inherent in ANY such design. Go 'fly by wire' to fix this problem and you've only added a layer of complexity that will erode their dispatch reliability and increase their vulnerability.

It is not an execution problem it is a concept problem. Worst of all, the gains even if it suceeds to 100% of the concept's capability do not justify the R&D money. They especially do not justify the concentration of DoD budget away from things that will actually be useful and reliable.

My opinion.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineAFEaviator From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2872 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 10):
The notion of an aircraft that offers the best of both worlds is a very cool idea, but technology just isn't there

Actually the technology is there, but the compromise in the tilt-rotor design, made so the aircraft could fit on a ship, is what makes the V-22 the plane it is and not the plane it could be.

A longer wing and larger proprotor would significantly increase performance with minimal redesign.

I am currently in training as a FE on the CV and have spent the last few months working with them. Personally I feel that the plane is a lot of compromise, but the technology has a lot of merit. If they got rid of the wing stow, increased the wind span by 3 feet on both sides, and add 3 feet to each prop-rotor you would get amazing gains in performance and much less rotor wash.

As for the vortex ring state issue.

The V-22 is far less susceptible to VRS than helicopters are. I am not sure why this is aerodynamically as I missed the tilt-rotor aerodynamics brief by the Boeing rep a couple of months ago. Looking at the charts though you will get an audible warning at 0-40 KCAS and a 800 FPM sink. This is no where near VRS for the V-22 but was put in as a design safety net to allow the aircrew time to react and correct the situation. At 80 KCAS you are looking at a sink in excess of 1600 FPM to encounter VRS. Anything above that and you can sink all day with out any issues other than mother earth.

As for the difficulty flying it; I think it is easier to fly than a H-60. You can hands off hover the plane with the flight director and in a serious brown-out you can bring the plane all the way to the ground with minimal drift by coupling the AFCS with the Flight Director and just reducing power gradually. I am have no actual pilot time but I have flown the simulator on a number of occasions (( Class D commercially rated sim )) and had no issues flying the plane. Transitioning and Converting are very easy to do and it is very difficult to stall the plane. The aircraft is very redundant system wise and it is hard to get yourself into trouble with it.

Now I am by no means saying the plane is perfect and the be all to end all. I think there is a very real need for helicopters and there utility. I also see where the V-22 fits into a niche that isn't offered individually by a fixed wing or rotary wing asset. Personally I see the V-22 as a middle point/stepping stone for any future use of the R and D that has come of its making. Hopefully the next tilt-rotor (( if there ever is another made )) will not have the compromises in the design ( like having to fit on a ship )built into it.


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2860 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 2):
On the contrary, I think the Army should buy Ospreys to equip their Aviation Brigades.

I think the Army should buy Ospreys for the Aviation Brigades that work with the Airborne Units (82nd, 101st Divisions, 173rd Airborne Brigade), 10th Mountain Division and the Stryker Brigades in Germany, Korea, Alaska and Hawaii.

You said this in the last thread too, and I asked you this same question, "WHY?" But you never answered me.

I mean... how did you pick THOSE divisions out of all the others? You do realize the 10th, 82nd and 101st (AIR ASSAULT HOOAH!) are all light divisions?

Beside you thinking it would be cool to have the V-22, why are those divisions in need of the aircraft? I'm not being sarcastic, I am honestly interested in your answer.

What would you do with the Chinook? Which, by the way, can sling load more weight, carry more troops, serve as a gunship if needed and is currently being upgraded to an all glass cockpit Foxtrot model. And if the mission does not require the large -47... the -60 is usually a perfect fit. It's not like we have some huge gap in between.

Where would you find funding for the purchase of the -22? Not sure if you know this... but the Army's budget is virtually tied up at the moment, there isn't any extra cash sitting around.

What mission can the -22 offer the Army that isn't already covered by the current fleet?

I guess what I'm saying is: sure it's cool for us to say, "Yeah the Army needs the RAH66 Comanche!" or "Yeah wouldn't it be cool if the Army had the Crusader Artillery unit!" or "Yeah, the Army needs to buy some V22 Ospreys." - but at the end of the day, you're going to have to give a good reason why we should totally rework Army Aviation and spend billions in the process.

-UH60


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11445 posts, RR: 76
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2806 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The Army doesn' t need CVs (outside of some specialty role) because it doesn't have the same missions as the Air Force or the Marines. The AF wants to conduct long distance CSAR with faster ingress/egress due to the generally longer distances it has to travel to recover it's pilots. The Marines have a specific need for faster long distance ingress capability for it's assault forces and would like to keep it's big Frog vessels as far from the littorals as possible during the initial phases of any action. That means using LCACs and MVs along with fixed wing support prior to getting closer for helo support.

The Army usually defines the FEBA and does not really need the range or speed as much as it needs the lifting and maneuvering offered by existing assets.

The RAH-66 mission was conceived during the cold war, and the decision to cancel it and redirect the money to where it's at now was a good one. The tech developed is still there and available for future use, but the helo was a mini-stealth attack bird without a real mission, especially in light of developments in UCAV recce birds.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2787 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
The Marines have a specific need for faster long distance ingress capability for it's assault forces and would like to keep it's big Frog vessels as far from the littorals as possible during the initial phases of any action. That means using LCACs and MVs along with fixed wing support prior to getting closer for helo support.

That is the common perception but if you've ever been near the MEU and saw the LCAC's and LCU's offload the ground equipment, you'd realize that the process is so slow that they have to be close to shore in order for it to work. (Ironic too how the Navy had to bring thier CVN's closer in to shore for the Super Hornets than what they had to with the Grumman Intruder and Tomcats, but that's another topic!)

The V-22 advantage only really pays dividends when their doing a SPECOPs type mission which by nature are not usually too terribly large in size, otherwise a conventional helo would be just fine (and at 1/2 to 1/3 the cost, much wiser to procure in large numbers.) If it were up to me I'd carry about as many V-22's as I do CH-53 (four) on my LHD's and make the bulk of my medium lift (about ten to twelve) with a conventional, modern helo such as an MH-60S, H-92, US-101, or even an NH-90.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 21):
but the helo was a mini-stealth attack bird without a real mission

That always made me scratch my head, why did it have to be stealth? At what point would an attack and/or recon helo on a combat mission fly high enough so as to pop up on radar? (Perhaps in the flat desert but it wasn't even designed for those theater's!)


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2766 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 22):
That always made me scratch my head, why did it have to be stealth? At what point would an attack and/or recon helo on a combat mission fly high enough so as to pop up on radar? (Perhaps in the flat desert but it wasn't even designed for those theater's!)

Well what was, and still is to some extent, the biggest threat to helicopters?

AAA.

Remember, back in the late 80s and 90s, the ZSU-23 was seen to be a boogie man of anti-aircraft weaponry. We know now that it's radar tracking abilities were not as awesome as we earlier suspected... but it's still something to avoid! And of course, the Army envisioned the RAH-66 going deeper behind enemy lines than the Kiowa could and to be self sustaining in the process.

Now as AWESOME as flying one of those would have been... the Army made the right decision in cancelling it. And the RAH-70, which is a phoenix risen from the ashes of the Comanche, looks to be a good replacement for the Delta Kiowas. Of course, one of the biggest problems the Deltas face (especially over here in Iraq) is being totally underpowered.

I flew the Charlie model Kiowas back at Ft Rucker... and they were absolutely a blast to fly. But they were overworked, underpowered and always threatening to fly apart at the seams! The Delta model was given an upgraded engine... only to be bogged down with heavy avionics!

So anyhoo... the RAH-70 will have the more powerful HTS900 turbine engine ... but whether they negate this fact by loading it down with more crap, is yet to be seen!

-UH60


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2746 times:

If you kill the Osprey you're going to either loose the heavy transport helicopter capability in the USMC (and in time the Navy and Army as well) or suffer a lot of crashes.
It's already overdue due to political nonsense slowing development and deployment to replace 40 year old machines that have been worked hard and are almost ready to fall out of the sky.

But of course you can just scrap the armed forces, which according to the same people who want the Osprey dead (and the F-22, the F-35, and every other military program) are the enemy.



I wish I were flying
25 AirRyan : But don't those guns have a modern IR capability as well? I certainly have heard the underpowered gripe on the current OH-58's in use now - especiall
26 UH60FtRucker : What aircraft are you referring too? It's too bad a lot of what we discovered about Soviet technology is not public realm. Sufficed to say, Soviet mi
27 Boeing Nut : Absolutely not. What we should deal away with is the Osprey engineers. They should go to the school of engineers that built the XV-15. Christ, this t
28 DL021 : Because they had a nickname for the OH-58C cav scout/aeroscout observer....."Smokebombs". The guys flying these things did not expect to live long in
29 AirSpare : OT but relevant. It was known prior to the end of the Cold War. The US had a lot of captured foreign miitary equipment, from the Israelis on to what
30 CTR : Airspare, Your thread, but please don't quote me out of context. My entire statement was: Building on AFEaviator's statement: His hope is fulfilled in
31 BHMBAGLOCK : I think you're pretty misinformed here: 1. Many, many engineers in common between the projects. Not just Bell, btw as most think, Boeing as well. The
32 AirRyan : But that is just the problem with the Osprey program, you just can't kill the slimy, money-eating bastard!
33 Post contains images Christa : Kill the Osprey...
34 Propatriamori : Lots of interesting comments here, and I've been following this discussion for a while. I talked extensively with a source inside the HMM community re
35 Post contains images AirRyan : I don't think an outright cancellation could happen (although it would be warranted,) so I'm hoping that the buy is cut in half and that the V-22's a
36 AGM100 : I would agree on canceling the production of the Osprey , but continue some work on the technology. Looking at the situation the US is faced with now
37 Confuscius : Should We Kill The Osprey? Isn't it on the endangered/protected-species list? That would be illegal.
38 Post contains images AirRyan : But if a tree in the middle of the forest falls down and no one heard it, did it really make any sound falling or not?
39 Post contains images DEVILFISH : "Ahh, that is so profound Grasshopper (aka David Carradine), but remember that the ground has ears and it will ring far and wide in the halls of Capi
40 Post contains links and images AirRyan : Why does that remind me of a movie Will Ferrell should play in? Cross your fingers DevilDogs - "HMM" isn't killed just yet!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Should We Kill The Osprey?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Marines Were Out To Get & Kill The F22 Raptor posted Tue Jan 3 2006 22:28:24 by Keesje
Where The Hell Is The Osprey? posted Tue May 3 2005 00:54:07 by KiwiNanday
Asking For Advice. Should I Work For The AF? posted Sun Mar 21 2004 23:33:26 by ConcordeLoss
Quick Question About The Bell/Boeing MV-22B Osprey posted Sun Jul 16 2006 23:16:58 by UA777222
Should The USAF Build A B-2B? posted Sun Jul 2 2006 10:33:17 by KC135TopBoom
Should The A4-D Skyraider Be In Todays Inventory? posted Sat Mar 25 2006 22:33:24 by Boeing Nut
Should The US Buy Some A-400Ms? posted Wed Dec 28 2005 18:16:17 by KC135TopBoom
Export Chances Of The V-22 Osprey posted Sun Dec 11 2005 23:43:23 by Columba
Should The Space Shuttle Program End Soon? posted Wed Aug 10 2005 05:33:41 by LTBEWR
Should The Usaf Consider Buying AM-400s? posted Tue Mar 15 2005 09:23:34 by KC135TopBoom

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format