http://thehill.com/component/content/article/63887-osprey-squadron-to-afghanistan-for-the-first-time
Gotta love how the media just cant let go of the past BTW.
Gotta love how the media just cant let go of the past BTW.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Osprey Heads to Afghanistan
- Thread starter Birdog8585
- Start date
Finally! OEF is a far better test for the MV-22's briefed capabilities than Iraq. However, I'll bet my pay check that the Osperey never sees a tactical troop infil/exfil and is restricted to flying from hard stand to hard stand.
MR-
MR-
When you don't/can't understand facts and do research, parroting the past is the only thing they know how to do.
Clux4
Banned
Anymore negative press will be bad juju. You are probably correct.
Stupid question for an osprey guy to answer: How does the Osprey exploit it's ability to fly higher with troops in the back? Do they go on O2, or do you guys just button everything up and pressurize the whole aircraft?
I don't know why you'd say that.
They'll do the same assortment of missions as the squadron they replace. Like everyone else in assault support, they'll do way more logistics than assault, but if the Marines fly in to anywhere, it'll be in V-22s.
It's a far better platform landing in the desert than anything else in the Marine inventory. Having flown the 46 in Afghanistan and the V-22 in other deserts, I feel MUCH more comfortable flying the V-22.
Hopefully the critics will finally be quieted once 261 is done there, but I doubt it.
This shit never dies. When the F-111 was retired, the articles still talked about the 'Vark's "troubled history" and "many pilot losses". It had some serious teething issues at first, yes, but the sumbitch then served very successfully for 20+ years and is still flying in Oz. Controversy just makes everything so much more interesting, I suppose.
bob88899
Member
I dont understand all the hoopla surrounding the v-22... If you look at history, pretty much all new aircraft that come into service run into problems.. They had problems with the v-22 crashing because of the ring vortex stalls (which was solved by implementing procedures to prevent them) and now i think it has maintanaince and reliability issues (which is solved in time as maintainers gain experience on the aircraft and better parts delivered)...i have no doubt the issues will be hammered out.. they always are...
The media looks at airplanes as cars with wings; they expect the planes to react the same way as a car you jump in, turn the key, and drive away in. We've had 100 years to hammer this flying thing out, shouldn't we be better at it? They've got no appreciation for the differences between GA/Commercial aviation and military flying, and they like to sell newspapers at anyone else's expense (I know I'm not telling you anything new with any of this).
Things we take for granted as a "when it happens, not if it happens", like compressor stalls, hydraulic problems or engine flameouts/3 engine landings seem like a big deal to them. Since they don't happen often in commercial airliners, these things signify something terribly unsafe or inherently wrong in the way we do business. Selling the truth and telling the truth are two very different things.
Plus, you don't win a Pulitzer by writing articles about how a government project is encountering expected difficulties that are slowly being hammered out. You get headlines by exposing things. Nothing to expose? Nonsense, this is a government project...there must be something.
The press assumes that every DoD project is a seething cauldron of waste, fraud and abuse, either dangerous or wasteful or both (to be fair, not entirely without reason). So, take a thirst for sensationalism and recognition, add cynicism and a general ignorance of military aviation, and you get pretty much every general-readership article about the Devil's Whirlybird ever written.
The press assumes that every DoD project is a seething cauldron of waste, fraud and abuse, either dangerous or wasteful or both (to be fair, not entirely without reason). So, take a thirst for sensationalism and recognition, add cynicism and a general ignorance of military aviation, and you get pretty much every general-readership article about the Devil's Whirlybird ever written.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
I'll be the first to say I don't like it. But I also have a very strong love affair with the Phrog.
It is the evoultion and the future of rotorcraft. I do think that the USMC did some things wrong with transition/adopting. But I'm just a company grade so my opinion smells like everyone else's. However, I think that if you had transitioned the Phrog to a mix of Ospreys/some unnamed medium lift asset larger than the 4 bladed Huey (think 3 squadrons of V-22s, 3 squadrons of CH-X in New River), then we could truly be a flexible/tailored ACE.
Trying to say that it's replacing the Phrog is inaccurate. It's not, and it never will.
Like it or not, it's here to stay. Having just flown several missions with the Ospreys I can tell you it brings a lot to the fight however, the difficulty lies within the integration between the V-22, CH-53E and skids. Phrogdriver, your MEU will come back with a sea bag full of "lessons learned" that will shape future MEU operations.
The Marine Corps did a LOT of things wrong with the transition. Unfortunately, it took a major mishap for them to do many of the things that should have been done all along. If they'd started those things earlier, we wouldn't have the problems we do.
Changing the mix of the medium lift is not the right answer. We got this aircraft with the presumption that we'd be able to move a substantial portion of the MAGTF long distances. Once you water that proposition down, the value of having a particular long range asset goes down drastically. If putting a company downrange by itself is a little light, then putting a platoon out deep is practically useless. Unless you're moving specops types, it's useless, and that's not our business.
Plus, adding another TMS to the mix complicates everything. We need fewer models on the deck, not more.