BDGERJMN

Assuming requirements and mission assignments which drive those requirements don't change you are correct. As you well know acquisition and requirements is an ever changing world and one that a 20 yr development process doesn't address across the board.

I'd like to think of the V-22 program as a "jack of all trades, master of none" much like the Hornet/Superhornet has been for USN/USMC aviators for many years. This aircraft started out with many problems, many of which were fixed, some of which were not. I don't know what caused this particular mishap, but the the fact that there was a class A mishap with devastating results ought not to be the reason we start trying to armchair qb a decision to keep/buy an aircraft when that decision was made years ago IMHO. At the end of the day the V-22 brings a formidible platform to an arguably difficult theater and has performed rather well.

ryan1234

Either way everyone could think up a bunch of remote possibilities that no one could survive in any aircraft. A rag in a critical component, dual transmission failures, international space station falling out of orbit and onto the aircraft......

The survivability is arguably better than most legacy helicopters right now, not to mentioned when combined with a speed advantage for less time over enemy air defenses.

Also weren't several ground purpose vehicles designed specifically for the -53?

The fact of the matter, as BDGERJMN said,is the airframe has been purchased. As they say, we are where we are - better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

joepilot

I had a F/O a few years back who was a retired Marine who spent his entire career in the Harrier. He had some very nice things to say....about the ejection seats.

Joe

SabreDriver

Just how many people have "survived" V-22 crashes..... I think it is a pretty short list.

Speed advantage: Yes, it has one, but it is just 80 Kts faster than a CH-53 (250 vs 170) but the -53 can do 170 carrying DOUBLE the payload. The CH-47 is also a 170 knot airframe with almost double the payload. Faster isn't always better. To move the same load over the enemy, the Osprey has to make twice as many trips. The only thing worse than flying over hot territory, is having to do it again, or having to use twice as many airframes to get the job done.

No doubt a fair number of folks have perished in the legacy rotor wing airframes that are now in the inventory, but the osprey, no thanks. We (the services) could have done better in the acquisition process, but we didn't. Now our warfighters will have to work with what they've been saddled with.

The fact of the matter is that the Osprey is really on its initial combat exposure, we will all have to wait and see how it performs. We are now employing it in some pretty demanding circumstances. Time to see if we got our money's worth.

It is what it is.

SD

USMCFLYR

Is he talking *crash* survivability or combat damage survivability?
Even if people haven't been walking away from crashes - you know that the Osrpey has better crash survivability built into the airframe than legacy helos have for a long time.

Even just using Wiki's numbers here - you are comparing a -53 MAX speed with the -22's cruising speed. Wiki lists:
Cruise 150 -vs- 240
Max 170 -vs- 305

So true. At least for the Marines though I can tell you that I'm glad to see something else besides a CH-46. That machine will go down as a great bird - but it has done its' job. Whether the MV-22 will be a worthy successor, well....it will take a long time to prove its' metal.

USMCFLYR

727C47

ah yes,the CH46,when I was a 9 year old in '69,they were clattering around Q-town, later when I was going through Q-town ,embarking on the great adventure,they were still clattering around,and now in 2010 the old Frog has earned its eternal rest,is the MV22 the answer or should the Corps have just bought a bunch of good Blackhawks,well thats another rave entirely,but the good old enduring Ch46 ,smoking over the desert at 90 kts,barely lifting a squad into the Sierras ,for the sake of the aviators,and the grunts,needs to be replaced by a more viable airframe.end of rave. Semper *****ing.out.

SabreDriver

I got the speeds from the Boeing website, which states that the MV-22 has a 250 Max speed. I think I used a .mil site for the -53E max speed, which was listed as 170. I tried to ues Max vs. Max, I'd bet the 305 is a TAS calculated at FL250. Hang an external on each one, and I would bet we would have a horse race.

You are correct that our Marines do need a new lifter to replace the 46, they deserve it. We can do better.

XHooker

The Osprey program began before I started AOCS and the aircraft wasn't operational until well after I retired. All for an airframe that doesn't seem like a huge improvement over the 53E (Though I'm admittedly unqualified to speak with any authority on the subject and when I was in primary I can remember Marine instructors talking about the 53E being dangerous). This is a common theme in the military, spend a lot of time and money on something that's only a marginal improvement over what it replaces. Tough to balance the need to push the technology envelope with the fiscal restraint necessary to have an efficient, well trained force.

I think back to the A-6F program that was canned in favor of the A-12 that never got built, leaving a gap in our force. Often, we let perfect be the enemy of good. As has been said, it's "water under the bridge" now as the decisions have been made.

USMCFLYR

Agreed. I remembering being told in Primary (1990), that I have perfect timing for choosing the Osprey out of flight school. I almost chose based on that advice. I'm glad I changed my mind!

USMCFLYR

FDXLAG

Congress just might have something to do with this.