V-22 EXPOSÉ: FURTHER EVIDENCE OF TIME MAGAZINE'S DECLINE. Lexington
Institute.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1183.shtml

V-22 EXPOSÉ: FURTHER EVIDENCE OF TIME MAGAZINE'S DECLINE
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
Issue Brief
Oct 4, 2007

There's sad news from our nation's capital this week friends. It
turns out that the Marine Corps has been run for a quarter century by
incompetent leaders who have worked closely with corrupt members of
Congress to put young Marines in aircraft that will get them killed.
The only thing that can save us from this cabal is courageous
investigative reporting that reveals the rot destroying our defense
establishment.

Oops -- my mistake! I just described the screenplay for Oliver
Stone's next movie. The sad news from Washington I meant to discuss
was the continuing erosion of Time Magazine's relevance in the modern
world, as reflected in its goofy cover story this week about the V-22
Osprey tiltrotor that the Marine Corps and other military services are
buying. Time Magazine used to be a major force in American
journalism, but now it is searching desperately for readers in a news
market crowded with more engaging alternatives. Faced with the same
extinction that claimed sister publication Life Magazine, Time is
resorting to an old journalistic tool to hold market share --
sensationalism.

Since it's hard to be sensational if you have to report all the facts,
Time reporter Mark Thompson has elected to include only the bad
stuff. Unfortunately, this results in an account of the V-22's
development that could only be true if the Marine Corps had been run
by idiots for the last 25 years -- idiots who don't care about the
fate of their fellow Marines in combat. It isn't really necessary to
rebut this ridiculous thesis, because the V-22 is deploying for combat
in Iraq and we will soon have unambiguous indicators of its
performance. But just for fun...

1. Time says the V-22 was so bad that even defense secretary Dick
Cheney wanted to cancel it. Actually, Cheney killed a hundred major
weapons programs in four years at the Pentagon, and V-22 was the one
program he couldn't convince Congress to eliminate.

2. Time says the V-22 has suffered half a dozen major mishaps during
development claiming 30 lives. That's true, but it fails to mention
that the CH-46 helicopter the Osprey will replace suffered 44 major
mishaps during its first five years of service.

3. Time says the V-22 should be equipped with a forward-firing gun to
perform its assault support role. That will come as news to the
military, since no assault support aircraft in the joint fleet carries
a forward-firing gun.

4. Time says V-22 lacks the "autorotation" capacity that allows
helicopters to descend to a survivable landing if engines fail. Well
duh: V-22 isn't a helicopter. However, it has more unpowered glide
capability than any chopper in the fleet.

5. Time says the latest version of V-22 is only ready to fly 62% of
the time. The real mission-capable rate is 70% -- not bad for a new
aircraft, and much better than the aging helicopters the Air Force
uses for search and rescue in Iraq.

I could go on, but what's the point? There's no market for good news
about weapons systems. But you're still going to be hearing a lot
about the V-22 in Iraq, because any aircraft that combines the speed
and range of airplanes with the vertical agility of helicopters will
change the way we wage war.

> Since it's hard to be sensational if you have to report all the facts,
> Time reporter Mark Thompson has elected to include only the bad
> stuff. Unfortunately, this results in an account of the V-22's
> development that could only be true if the Marine Corps had been run
> by idiots for the last 25 years -- idiots who don't care about the
> fate of their fellow Marines in combat. It isn't really necessary to
> rebut this ridiculous thesis, because the V-22 is deploying for combat
> in Iraq and we will soon have unambiguous indicators of its
> performance. But just for fun...
>
> 1. Time says the V-22 was so bad that even defense secretary Dick
> Cheney wanted to cancel it. Actually, Cheney killed a hundred major
> weapons programs in four years at the Pentagon, and V-22 was the one
> program he couldn't convince Congress to eliminate.

Pork! Pork! Pork!

>
> 2. Time says the V-22 has suffered half a dozen major mishaps during
> development claiming 30 lives. That's true, but it fails to mention
> that the CH-46 helicopter the Osprey will replace suffered 44 major
> mishaps during its first five years of service.

Maybe we should build more CH-46s.

>
> 4. Time says V-22 lacks the "autorotation" capacity that allows
> helicopters to descend to a survivable landing if engines fail. Well
> duh: V-22 isn't a helicopter. However, it has more unpowered glide
> capability than any chopper in the fleet.

What's best glide speed ? Touchdown speed in feathered airplane mode?
And you can't practice that-it means losing the rotors and probably
the engine gearboxes and maybe the engine nacelle as well if the
rotors don't snap or bend easily.

>
> 5. Time says the latest version of V-22 is only ready to fly 62% of
> the time. The real mission-capable rate is 70% -- not bad for a new
> aircraft, and much better than the aging helicopters the Air Force
> uses for search and rescue in Iraq.
>
> I could go on, but what's the point? There's no market for good news
> about weapons systems. But you're still going to be hearing a lot
> about the V-22 in Iraq, because any aircraft that combines the speed
> and range of airplanes with the vertical agility of helicopters will
> change the way we wage war.

It will send a lot of people home in boxes.

It should be pushed off the deck in deep water.

"Mike" > wrote in message
ups.com...
V-22 EXPOSÉ: FURTHER EVIDENCE OF TIME MAGAZINE'S DECLINE. Lexington
Institute.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1183.shtml

V-22 EXPOSÉ: FURTHER EVIDENCE OF TIME MAGAZINE'S DECLINE
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
Issue Brief
Oct 4, 2007

one burst of fire into the "wing" of the v-22 will screw up the gearing and
it will drop like a brick.

On Oct 8, 11:18 am, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
> "Mike" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
> V-22 EXPOSÉ: FURTHER EVIDENCE OF TIME MAGAZINE'S DECLINE. Lexington
> Institute.http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1183.shtml
>
> V-22 EXPOSÉ: FURTHER EVIDENCE OF TIME MAGAZINE'S DECLINE
> Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Issue Brief
> Oct 4, 2007
>
> one burst of fire into the "wing" of the v-22 will screw up the gearing and
> it will drop like a brick.

Based on what evidence? Which Live-Fire test results have you seen to
support this? I've never met you so I don't know what you look like
but I don't remember your name on the guest list when we were
shooting, repeatedly into the wing structurs, gearing, and all the
other components.

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

On Oct 8, 3:05 pm, BlackBeard > wrote:
> On Oct 8, 11:18 am, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
>
> > "Mike" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
> > V-22 EXPOSÉ: FURTHER EVIDENCE OF TIME MAGAZINE'S DECLINE. Lexington
> > Institute.http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1183.shtml
>
> > V-22 EXPOSÉ: FURTHER EVIDENCE OF TIME MAGAZINE'S DECLINE
> > Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
> > Issue Brief
> > Oct 4, 2007
>
> > one burst of fire into the "wing" of the v-22 will screw up the gearing and
> > it will drop like a brick.
>
> Based on what evidence? Which Live-Fire test results have you seen to
> support this? I've never met you so I don't know what you look like
> but I don't remember your name on the guest list when we were
> shooting, repeatedly into the wing structurs, gearing, and all the
> other components.

I trust you are feeling better, hope everything is going good for you.
I won't ask any no-no stuff, but did things generally go well there? I
know that in things like choppers there have been suprising advances
in the past 20 or so years in materials, not just ones for airframe
strength and less weight, but in strength. I'm wondering if that plays
in. Not just in the shafts themselves but in the wings around them,
how things are layered (Like the protected cruisrer concept maybe?)
etc.

I won't ask what those long driveshafts are made of, I'm guessing the
main worry would be the areas where they gear into things, and I won't
push too much on that if you don't want to really get into it.


> BB
>
> I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
> It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

On Oct 8, 2:02 pm, "David E. Powell" >
>
> I trust you are feeling better, hope everything is going good for you.
> I won't ask any no-no stuff, but did things generally go well there? I
> know that in things like choppers there have been suprising advances
> in the past 20 or so years in materials, not just ones for airframe
> strength and less weight, but in strength. I'm wondering if that plays
> in. Not just in the shafts themselves but in the wings around them,
> how things are layered (Like the protected cruisrer concept maybe?)
> etc.
>
> I won't ask what those long driveshafts are made of, I'm guessing the
> main worry would be the areas where they gear into things, and I won't
> push too much on that if you don't want to really get into it.

I won't violate my reading-out ;) So no details.
The generic answer is yes. Many of those upgrades to the old helos
is the same technology that was available or actually developed in
conjunction with the V-22.
In some cases with Live-Fire tests the manufacture comes to the test
confident in what the results will be. It doesn't take long for them
to realize they were optimistic. But by congressional mandate they
must pass the LFT&E program. So they keep coming back until the
components/structure/engines etc. pass the requirements.
As to your (chopper) Helo comment. We were testing an upgrade to
the XX platform and shot a certain gearbox. The 'cap' came off, all
the lubricant and the one of a pair of bearings was expelled from the
housing. The Helo continued to hover for 30 minutes. The pilots
watching the test were amazed and one commented that with a hit lke
that he would have "set her down immediately and resolved himself to
being captured." Yet here was hands-on proof he could have flown for
30 minutes to hopefully less-hostile territory.
Feeling better from what?

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

"BlackBeard" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> Feeling better from what?
>
Being in the Navy. ;)

Glenn D.

On Oct 8, 2:18 pm, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:
> "Mike" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
> V-22 EXPOSÉ: FURTHER EVIDENCE OF TIME MAGAZINE'S DECLINE. Lexington
> Institute.http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1183.shtml
>
> V-22 EXPOSÉ: FURTHER EVIDENCE OF TIME MAGAZINE'S DECLINE
> Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Issue Brief
> Oct 4, 2007
>
> one burst of fire into the "wing" of the v-22 will screw up the gearing and
> it will drop like a brick.

The only gearing in the wing would effect control surfaces and engine
tilt. Well, I guess you could call the gears in the engines "in the
wing". But other than blasting an engine sufficent to kill that
engine AND sever the connection to the other engine, there's no
"gearing" in the wing that's going to drop the bird.
Blasting the cross connect drive shaft won't do it assuming both
engines are still running.

But you know, just like a helicopter, blast a rotor in to inoperablity
and it will crash.

On Oct 8, 3:02 pm, "Glenn Dowdy" > wrote:
> "BlackBeard" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
> > Feeling better from what?
>
> Being in the Navy. ;)
>
> Glenn D.

Smart ass! ;)

BB

I guess everybody has some mountain to climb.
It's just fate whether you live in Kansas or Tibet...

On Oct 8, 1:18 pm, "Ray O'Hara" > wrote:

> one burst of fire into the "wing" of the v-22 will screw up the gearing and
> it will drop like a brick.

Ray, a burst of fire into quite a few places on most helicopters will
accomplish the same thing.

These aircraft can get into and out of LZs faster than the airframes
they are replacing, given them a shorter exposure time. I am not a
fan of the huge footprint of the Osprey, but we can't expect the CH
46s to soldier on forever.

v/r
Gordon

You know the arguments against the V-22 may be thin and Time's reporting may
have been shabby, but this so called rebutal by some PhD kind of person is
nothing but bull**** - this is got be an example of some classic web-based
construction by twits ... PhD my ass



"Mike" > wrote in message
ups.com...
V-22 EXPOSÉ: FURTHER EVIDENCE OF TIME MAGAZINE'S DECLINE. Lexington
Institute.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1183.shtml

V-22 EXPOSÉ: FURTHER EVIDENCE OF TIME MAGAZINE'S DECLINE
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
Issue Brief
Oct 4, 2007

There's sad news from our nation's capital this week friends. It
turns out that the Marine Corps has been run for a quarter century by
incompetent leaders who have worked closely with corrupt members of
Congress to put young Marines in aircraft that will get them killed.
The only thing that can save us from this cabal is courageous
investigative reporting that reveals the rot destroying our defense
establishment.

Oops -- my mistake! I just described the screenplay for Oliver
Stone's next movie. The sad news from Washington I meant to discuss
was the continuing erosion of Time Magazine's relevance in the modern
world, as reflected in its goofy cover story this week about the V-22
Osprey tiltrotor that the Marine Corps and other military services are
buying. Time Magazine used to be a major force in American
journalism, but now it is searching desperately for readers in a news
market crowded with more engaging alternatives. Faced with the same
extinction that claimed sister publication Life Magazine, Time is
resorting to an old journalistic tool to hold market share --
sensationalism.

Since it's hard to be sensational if you have to report all the facts,
Time reporter Mark Thompson has elected to include only the bad
stuff. Unfortunately, this results in an account of the V-22's
development that could only be true if the Marine Corps had been run
by idiots for the last 25 years -- idiots who don't care about the
fate of their fellow Marines in combat. It isn't really necessary to
rebut this ridiculous thesis, because the V-22 is deploying for combat
in Iraq and we will soon have unambiguous indicators of its
performance. But just for fun...

1. Time says the V-22 was so bad that even defense secretary Dick
Cheney wanted to cancel it. Actually, Cheney killed a hundred major
weapons programs in four years at the Pentagon, and V-22 was the one
program he couldn't convince Congress to eliminate.

2. Time says the V-22 has suffered half a dozen major mishaps during
development claiming 30 lives. That's true, but it fails to mention
that the CH-46 helicopter the Osprey will replace suffered 44 major
mishaps during its first five years of service.

3. Time says the V-22 should be equipped with a forward-firing gun to
perform its assault support role. That will come as news to the
military, since no assault support aircraft in the joint fleet carries
a forward-firing gun.

4. Time says V-22 lacks the "autorotation" capacity that allows
helicopters to descend to a survivable landing if engines fail. Well
duh: V-22 isn't a helicopter. However, it has more unpowered glide
capability than any chopper in the fleet.

5. Time says the latest version of V-22 is only ready to fly 62% of
the time. The real mission-capable rate is 70% -- not bad for a new
aircraft, and much better than the aging helicopters the Air Force
uses for search and rescue in Iraq.

I could go on, but what's the point? There's no market for good news
about weapons systems. But you're still going to be hearing a lot
about the V-22 in Iraq, because any aircraft that combines the speed
and range of airplanes with the vertical agility of helicopters will
change the way we wage war.

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:33:38 GMT, "RAP Flashnet" >
wrote:

>You know the arguments against the V-22 may be thin and Time's reporting may
>have been shabby, but this so called rebutal by some PhD kind of person is
>nothing but bull**** - this is got be an example of some classic web-based
>construction by twits ... PhD my ass

Can you rebut any of the points the author made?



--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.

RAP Flashnet wrote:

>You know the arguments against the V-22 may be thin and Time's reporting may
>have been shabby, but this so called rebutal by some PhD kind of person is
>nothing but bull**** - this is got be an example of some classic web-based
>construction by twits ... PhD my ass
>
>
>
>
Well why don't you write Time and do a better job? :-\