RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,159482,00.html

She'll work. You know why? Because the Marines need her and they'll make her work. That's the way all flying is done in the military. Our pilots never get a care free aircraft. Thney always have to buy new bubble gum to get her to work just right. They also get these aircraft to do things they were not designed to do. You'll see that with the V-22 as well. Tell the cynics to shut up. Let's root for success here. Our Marines need this aircraft to destroy enemy.

The Osprey is so ugly that it's beautiful! It seems to be really leaning into its role in Iraq and other than a few mechanical issues, is developing into a reliable transport.

What did they say about the 46 when it was introduced?

These cynics root for failure no matter which side of the coin is viewed. As quoted from the article: "As long as they keep using it like a truck, I think they'll probably be okay," said Philip Coyle, a former Pentagon weapons testing director and a longtime Osprey critic." Well no $h1t Sherlock, that's what a 46 and 53 is used for as well, a$$ and trash are primary missions!

The 46, talk about a workhorse, a fine machine. I am sure it was much maligned back in the day. My Blackhawk caught a bunch of flak when it was new. Now look at it. I still worry about the size of the Osprey in the smaller LZs, but look at the utility it brings to the battlespace. Go Osprey!

Just keep flying 'em.

The critics will get tired of being proven wrong and eventually find some other new aircraft to complain about.

EVERY platform has issues when first designed, first built, first operated, first deployed, first used in combat and so on. The key is whether or not the warriors using the gear believe it brings enough value to the front to deal with the issues.

When the EOD teams first were given robots for bomb defusing, the response was less than enthusiatic. Now they don't want to leave home without a robot. The robots still have issues but the value they bring is worth the hassle.

It looks like the Osprey is worth the hassle.

The Osprey is looking pretty good, so far. I just hope that it continues.

As long as you have other assests covering the 270 degrees that it can't cover during an insertion or extraction, it will do just fine.

Remember, as it stands now, no guns to the sides no guns or rockets to the front, 1 m240 in the landing ramp is all you get.

Thats fine in the current semi-stabilized Iraq, but we will need to do better in a hairy situation.

quote:

Originally posted by schmiddc:
As long as you have other assests covering the 270 degrees that it can't cover during an insertion or extraction, it will do just fine.

Remember, as it stands now, no guns to the sides no guns or rockets to the front, 1 m240 in the landing ramp is all you get.

Thats fine in the current semi-stabilized Iraq, but we will need to do better in a hairy situation.

Marines don't send helos into hot zones..
They dont do it with -46's nor will they do it with Ospreys...The "no forward firing ordinance" is straight from that gem of journalistic BS from "Time" & has no merit.
It's designation is not AV-22.
If helicopter itself were just now being deployed,the critics would be saying exactly the same things about how unsafe & vulnerable they are due to their complexity ,slow speed,& limited range..
That Coyle A hole would be reffering to Igor Sikorsky as some crazy areonautical engineer just trying to make a name for himself.

Cool. Maybe this Osprey can get down to the business of finding all them WMDs over there.

quote:

Originally posted by smitty14:
What did they say about the 46 when it was introduced?

The term "Boeing Body Bag" was applied early on as it had an unfortunate tendency to break in half in level flight before they got the bugs worked out.

I think that the article explained it pretty well:

As long as you use the Osprey as a cargo/troop carrier, it will perform pretty well. But it breaks down a lot.

Even though the concept of the Osprey as an assault craft was widely promoted during its development and testing, it will never be the preferred aircraft for any livefire LZ.

The Marine Corps wanted it; it has it; and the Corps will put a brave face on, whenever they talk about it. That's just the way it is.

quote:

Originally posted by AGBrina:
I think that the article explained it pretty well:

As long as you use the Osprey as a cargo/troop carrier, it will perform pretty well.

Which works out great..Since that's what it's designed for & that's how it's used!..That's like saying 'As long as you use the U-2 as a high flying spyplane,it'll perform pretty well'

quote:

But it breaks down a lot.

Do you have any numbers to back that statement up?

quote:

Even though the concept of the Osprey as an assault craft was widely promoted during its development and testing, it will never be the preferred aircraft for any livefire LZ.

The preferred aircraft for a "livefire"(whatever that means)LZ is an AH-1W,AV-8,or anyone of a number of CAS platforms to make the LZ "cold"..The Marines are much smarter at employing rotary wing assets than the Army.It shows in their loss rate.

quote:

The Marine Corps wanted it; it has it; and the Corps will put a brave face on, whenever they talk about it. That's just the way it is.

Sorry to see your so cynical..
The Air Force got 'em,too.

Glad to hear it; was waiting to read up on it's performance over there in the Sandbox.

Using the numbers given it works out to less then two hours of flight time per bird per day.I've been out of the service for twenty years now but that number seems small to me(I could be wrong though).

Job well done. Keep it up.

God Bless our United States Marine Corps. Thats all I got to say on this subject. Opps...Sorry I forgot. God Bless all the Hueys too. Past and Present.

Don't worry. As soon as the first one crashes over there, no matter what the cause, all of the "experts" will be just as vocal as they were in the past. The sad thing is it will happen, just as it will happen with every other platform we employ, old or new. The difference is, just as another poster said, there are those just waiting, almost hoping for an Osprey to go down so they can say "I told you so".

24 years and how many millions wasted on a new "truck". At a time when the military cannot find enough personnel nor adequately pay them, why do we insist on paying for machines that only the contractors, subcontractors profit from? 5 years in a combat zone have taken their toll on the irreplacable killing machines with no relief in sight.