Navy special operations command version of the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft

[Larry Dighera]

BOEING CO. and the Bell Helicopter unit of TEXTRON INC. won a
$208 million contract for work on the special operations
command version of the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, the
Navy said on Tuesday. The Bell-Boeing Joint Program Office won
the contract to work on the CV-22 Block 0 and 10 Development
Program and extend flight tests of the CV-22 version of the
controversial aircraft, the Navy said. The V-22 resumed flight
tests in May 2002 -- 17 months after fatal crashes grounded it
and raised serious doubts about the technology in the $46
billion program. But Ward Carroll, spokesman for the program,
said the aircraft was doing well and was ready to shift from
development flight tests to operational flight tests this fall.
(Reuters 06:03 PM ET 09/23/2003)

More:
http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=867569&m=100623f721d0300010785a&s=rb030923

----------------------------------------------------------------
--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Thomas Schoene]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

> BOEING CO. and the Bell Helicopter unit of TEXTRON INC. won a
> $208 million contract for work on the special operations
> command version of the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, the
> Navy said on Tuesday.

There is no such thing as Navy Special Operations Command. These aircraft
are for US Special Operations Command and will be operated by the Air Force.
The only reason the Navy is involved is that Naval Air Systems Command is
the acquisition agent for all Osprey variants.

--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Kevin Brooks]

Larry Dighera > wrote in message >...
> BOEING CO. and the Bell Helicopter unit of TEXTRON INC. won a
> $208 million contract for work on the special operations
> command version of the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, the
> Navy said on Tuesday. The Bell-Boeing Joint Program Office won
> the contract to work on the CV-22 Block 0 and 10 Development
> Program and extend flight tests of the CV-22 version of the
> controversial aircraft, the Navy said. The V-22 resumed flight
> tests in May 2002 -- 17 months after fatal crashes grounded it
> and raised serious doubts about the technology in the $46
> billion program. But Ward Carroll, spokesman for the program,
> said the aircraft was doing well and was ready to shift from
> development flight tests to operational flight tests this fall.
> (Reuters 06:03 PM ET 09/23/2003)

I believe your title is a little misleading. As I understand it, the
CV-22 is for USSOCOM, specifically AFSOC; the Navy is executive
agent/program manager for the MV-22/CV-22 program as a whole. CV-22 is
not, as of yet, destined for any Naval special operations unit.

Brooks

>
> More:
> http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=867569&m=100623f721d0300010785a&s=rb030923
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------

[Bill Silvey]

<snip>

Ah, good, now we can start killing our own SpecOps guys by the two-dozen
instead of mere Marines.

Good on ya, Bell/Boeing! Only forty or so deaths in twenty years of
development!

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Blair Maynard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
m...
> <snip>
>
> Ah, good, now we can start killing our own SpecOps guys by the two-dozen
> instead of mere Marines.
>
> Good on ya, Bell/Boeing! Only forty or so deaths in twenty years of
> development!
>

"Forty or so"? Does that include the ones who died when the aliens attacked?
Which is, of course being covered up by the guverment....

http://www.zpub.com/notes/osprey.html

> --
> http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
> Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
> "Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
> I hate furries.
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0

iQA/AwUBP3WZ2lBGDfMEdHggEQLyawCfV91XlmeHivQu4frmePcHQ4 dLbckAoP2I
ulPelutyk+reeyUNIHwM/q69
=LKjJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Kevin Brooks]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message >...
> <snip>
>
> Ah, good, now we can start killing our own SpecOps guys by the two-dozen
> instead of mere Marines.
>
> Good on ya, Bell/Boeing! Only forty or so deaths in twenty years of
> development!

Care to ponder that we have already done so with the MH-47 (like the
one that went down off the PI last year with what, some ten folks
onboard?) and MH-53? Ever examine the current safety record of the
CH-46? The prototype B-29 killed 100% of its test crew, and the B-29
went on to a rather successful career. F-111's had a problem with
falling from the sky in their early days, and likewise went on to a
successful career. The Comet, from which the RN was to eventually get
its current Nimrods, had a bit of a problem with explosive
decompression. And the Electra, from which we get the Orion, had a
pretty nasty early record as well...

I guess the lesson here is supposed to be that if there are
developmental problems, the program should be immediately killed, huh
Bill? One wonders how many aircraft that kind of thinking would have
left us with in the past...

Brooks

[TJ]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

>The Comet, from which the RN was to eventually get its current Nimrods..

You'll have crews of the kipper fleet jumping up and down! The RN never
operated any of the Nimrod fleet. Nimrods are RAF.

TJ

[Bill Silvey]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om

> I guess the lesson here is supposed to be that if there are
> developmental problems, the program should be immediately killed, huh
> Bill? One wonders how many aircraft that kind of thinking would have
> left us with in the past...
>
> Brooks

Kevin, we've been around this before. It's *twenty years on* and the thing
still hasn't shown much capability beyond filling up body bags. I just
think it's a bad project. And bad projects themselves aren't the problem;
The M247 DIVAD was crap, too, but it (thankfully) didn't kill bunches of
people when stuff went wrong with it.

Re: leaving some aircraft in the past, I don't think you could qualitatively
argue the difference between say, a last-generation prop fighter like the
Mustang or Spitfire and first-generation jets. There was an obvious and
serious tactical advantage to jets. They were, no pun intended, taking off.
Was a P-80 that much better than a P51? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it was
evident that the evolutionary track for jets was the way to go.

I just don't see what possible purpose or advantage building the Osprey has
over building (not refitting or rebuilding or re-engineering) new Helos has.
The helo is proven technology, and it continues to get better.

Let me ask you this, Kevin, and I'm not being sarcastic when I ask: would
you, knowing what we know about the Osprey and it's development issues, take
a hop in one if the opportunity presented itself? Say, tomorrow?

Understand I respect your opinion and I'm not trying to incite anything.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Chad Irby]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote:

> I just don't see what possible purpose or advantage building the Osprey has
> over building (not refitting or rebuilding or re-engineering) new Helos has.

Let's see...

Speed: Cruise speed almost 100 knots faster than the CH-46 *top* speed
(240 versus 145), while carrying about twice as many troops. Ninety
knots faster than the CH-53's top speed, with about the same range.
Cruises about 60 knots faster than the Blackhawk's top end (85 faster
than the Blackhawk's cruise), while carrying twice as many troops.
Hell, the Osprey is at least 60 knots faster at *cruise* than our cool
little Comanche helos are at *max* speed... and 70 knots faster than the
"fastest combat helo" HIND D. The world speed record for pure
helicopters is *slower* than the Osprey's *cruise* speed, and is
approaching the theoretical max (250 knots or so). The Osprey, by the
way, has a top speed of about 275 knots...

Range: Twice that of the CH-46. About the same as the Blackhawk for
extended-range missions, while carrying twice as much and running about
twice as fast. About the same range as the CH-53, while carrying about
half as much at twice the speed.

Now, why in the *world* would someone consider that an advantage? After
the Iraq war, when we found that flying copters slower got them shot up
a lot more?

> The helo is proven technology, and it continues to get better.

As will the Osprey. But the regular helicopters aren't going to get
*enough* better to let them match the Osprey in any near future.
There's no way in hell to make a big cargo copter go much past 180
without radical changes... which puts you back in the "new technologies"
boat with the Osprey.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Blair Maynard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
...

> Let me ask you this, Kevin, and I'm not being sarcastic when I ask: would
> you, knowing what we know about the Osprey and it's development issues,
take
> a hop in one if the opportunity presented itself? Say, tomorrow?
>

Well. Obviously I can't speak for Kevin.

But if it were a choice between him or me flying in a V-22, he would find
himself tied up in a car trunk and hear the sound suspiciously similar to an
Osprey taking off nearby and somebody screaming
"yahooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!" over the prop roar.

>
> --
> http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
> Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
> "Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
> I hate furries.
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0

iQA/AwUBP3XoyVBGDfMEdHggEQKtrwCg8MvwV3x/ItM6ItRfkADQtJzD2U0AnjjB
8zwRSo+tBFTWTmjeSzOrNXuK
=CeMC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Kevin Brooks]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> om
>
> > I guess the lesson here is supposed to be that if there are
> > developmental problems, the program should be immediately killed, huh
> > Bill? One wonders how many aircraft that kind of thinking would have
> > left us with in the past...
> >
> > Brooks
>
> Kevin, we've been around this before. It's *twenty years on* and the thing
> still hasn't shown much capability beyond filling up body bags.

So you say. Just this past week the National Guard expressed interest
in the MV-22 (for the homeland defense role; they like the idea of
being able to load up one of their WMD teams and go straight to the
objective at sppeds and ranges exceeding helo capabilities, and the
potential it has for the firefighting role, etc.). The USAF wants to
continue with the CV-22. The USMC wants to continue with the MV-22.
And Bell has teamed with Agusta to market the AB 609 civil tilt rotor,
with some seventy reserved advance orders (from operators around the
world) on the books. So, I guess your claim that this is a deadend
program trumps all of these disparate groups? What do you know that
*all* of them are apparently ignorant of? Bill, at some point you have
to figure that all of these different groups have to have some idea of
what is what.

I just
> think it's a bad project. And bad projects themselves aren't the problem;
> The M247 DIVAD was crap, too, but it (thankfully) didn't kill bunches of
> people when stuff went wrong with it.
>
> Re: leaving some aircraft in the past, I don't think you could qualitatively
> argue the difference between say, a last-generation prop fighter like the
> Mustang or Spitfire and first-generation jets. There was an obvious and
> serious tactical advantage to jets. They were, no pun intended, taking off.
> Was a P-80 that much better than a P51? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it was
> evident that the evolutionary track for jets was the way to go.
>
> I just don't see what possible purpose or advantage building the Osprey has
> over building (not refitting or rebuilding or re-engineering) new Helos has.
> The helo is proven technology, and it continues to get better.

It is limited interms of its upper speed limits, for one thing. You
can make a pretty fast helo, but it will tend to lack legs and
carrying capacity; the tilt rotor blends the VTOL capability of the
helo with the cruise capabilities of a fixed wing, meaning greater
operational latitude. How many current helos can fly a 500 mile
insertion mission at between 230-240 knots? Answer--none.

Then there is deployability--the MV-22 offers a 2500 naut mile ferry
range, and compared to the current CH-46, cuts the number of required
supporting strategic airlift sorties for a squadron deployment from,
for the 46, four C-5 sorties *and* two C-141 sorties, to two C-141
sorties for the MV-22.

And finally versatility:

"…the MV-22 would be compatible for conducting aerial refuel/tanker
support to both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1997/Bullard.htm

How many helos can do *that*?

>
> Let me ask you this, Kevin, and I'm not being sarcastic when I ask: would
> you, knowing what we know about the Osprey and it's development issues, take
> a hop in one if the opportunity presented itself? Say, tomorrow?

Yep. I had three of them pass directly overhead my position a couple
of years back (very different noise they make--sort of
"whoosh-whoosh-whoosh" with their turbine sound tossed into the mix).
Believe it or not, not *one* of those critters fell on my poor little
pointy head. I'd much rather jump onboard a USMC crewed MV-22 as refly
that one commuter airflight (on a Bandierante, IIRC) where I asked the
pilot upon deplaning if that little access panel thingie on the port
nacelle was supposed to be flapping throughout the flight (no, it was
not one of those little flapper inlets--the guy asked me to show him
and said, "We gotta get somebody to fix that...").

Brooks

>
> Understand I respect your opinion and I'm not trying to incite anything.

[John Keeney]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
...
>
> Re: leaving some aircraft in the past, I don't think you could
qualitatively
> argue the difference between say, a last-generation prop fighter like the
> Mustang or Spitfire and first-generation jets. There was an obvious and
> serious tactical advantage to jets. They were, no pun intended, taking
off.
> Was a P-80 that much better than a P51? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it was
> evident that the evolutionary track for jets was the way to go.

As is the tilt rotor: much like the jet, it is just inherently faster than
its predecessor. Unlike the jet, it's also more efficient at cruise for
better range.

> I just don't see what possible purpose or advantage building the Osprey
has
> over building (not refitting or rebuilding or re-engineering) new Helos
has.
> The helo is proven technology, and it continues to get better.

Speed & range.

> Let me ask you this, Kevin, and I'm not being sarcastic when I ask: would
> you, knowing what we know about the Osprey and it's development issues,
take
> a hop in one if the opportunity presented itself? Say, tomorrow?

I'm not Kevin, but I'ld take the ride.

[John Halliwell]

In article >, John Keeney >
writes
>As is the tilt rotor: much like the jet, it is just inherently faster than
>its predecessor.

There are other ways of achieving fast VTOL, tilt-rotor is not the only
solution. Bell/Boeing have this ambition that their baby using their
technology is going to work, no matter how much it costs or how long it
takes. It seems to me they have the US taxpayers over a barrel, however
much it's costs, throwing good money after bad.

> Unlike the jet, it's also more efficient at cruise for
>better range.

On the other hand, the jet didn't take 20 years of development with
hundreds of millions of dollars spent, still without making it to
operational status. There comes a point when you have to put it out of
its misery and look for something else.

--
John

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Kevin
Brooks > writes
>I guess the lesson here is supposed to be that if there are
>developmental problems, the program should be immediately killed, huh
>Bill? One wonders how many aircraft that kind of thinking would have
>left us with in the past...

Immediately killed is one thing, struggling on for twenty years is quite
another. It seems to me it is time to either put it into service (and
accept the losses that will occur) or scrap the idea. Even if all the
problems are fixed, there will still be losses, will the first take it
out of service for another 5 years?

If it so revolutionary for the Marines requirements, then the risk is
probably worth taking anyway if it reduces 'risk' from enemy action.

--
John

[Peter Kemp]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 22:20:53 +0100, John Halliwell
> wrote:

>In article >, John Keeney >
>writes
>>As is the tilt rotor: much like the jet, it is just inherently faster than
>>its predecessor.
>
>There are other ways of achieving fast VTOL, tilt-rotor is not the only
>solution. Bell/Boeing have this ambition that their baby using their
>technology is going to work, no matter how much it costs or how long it
>takes. It seems to me they have the US taxpayers over a barrel, however
>much it's costs, throwing good money after bad.
>
>> Unlike the jet, it's also more efficient at cruise for
>>better range.
>
>On the other hand, the jet didn't take 20 years of development with
>hundreds of millions of dollars spent, still without making it to
>operational status. There comes a point when you have to put it out of
>its misery and look for something else.

Hmm. Whittle's first patent was 1930 (after he'd been working on jets
for a while), and the first successful jet aircraft arrived in what
'44? So 14 years, and jets were hardly reliable at that point, and not
for many years afterwards.

Peter Kemp
---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
John Halliwell > wrote:

> In article >, John Keeney >
> writes
> >As is the tilt rotor: much like the jet, it is just inherently faster than
> >its predecessor.
>
> There are other ways of achieving fast VTOL, tilt-rotor is not the only
> solution.

Name one that doesn't suck fuel like crazy.

> On the other hand, the jet didn't take 20 years of development with
> hundreds of millions of dollars spent, still without making it to
> operational status.

You mean like the Eurofighter? They started development of the
Eurofighter in 1983, three years *before* we started development on the
Osprey in 1986... and they're just getting the plane into service.

Overall, the "troubled" development of the Osprey is going to take less
time than the fairly-tame design goals of the Eurofighter.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Peter Kemp
<peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@?.?> writes
>Hmm. Whittle's first patent was 1930 (after he'd been working on jets
>for a while), and the first successful jet aircraft arrived in what
>'44? So 14 years, and jets were hardly reliable at that point, and not
>for many years afterwards.

If you're starting from scratch, Bell have been trying to get the tilt
rotor to work for 30-40 years with little to show for it.

--
John

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Chad Irby
> writes
>Name one that doesn't suck fuel like crazy.

The Rotordyne wasn't a bad start, with an extra 20 years development who
knows where it might be. There are likely to be other technologies which
could do a similar or better job. If Bell/Boeing could see beyond the
tilt rotor, better opportunities might develop faster.

>> On the other hand, the jet didn't take 20 years of development with
>> hundreds of millions of dollars spent, still without making it to
>> operational status.
>
>You mean like the Eurofighter? They started development of the
>Eurofighter in 1983, three years *before* we started development on the
>Osprey in 1986... and they're just getting the plane into service.

In no way would I try to defend the Eurofighter development. Growing up
in my part of the world (then surrounded by three BAe sites), EFA as it
was, was very big news. I grew up with it, saw EFA flying a decade ago
and see Typhoon flying almost every day at the moment. It has taken far
too long and was very nearly cancelled on at least one occasion, a lot
being down to political manoeuvring by various countries in the
consortium.

>Overall, the "troubled" development of the Osprey is going to take less
>time than the fairly-tame design goals of the Eurofighter.

Time will tell on that one.

--
John

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Peter Kemp <peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom> writes:
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 22:20:53 +0100, John Halliwell
> > wrote:
>
>>In article >, John Keeney >
>>writes
>>>As is the tilt rotor: much like the jet, it is just inherently faster than
>>>its predecessor.
>>
>>There are other ways of achieving fast VTOL, tilt-rotor is not the only
>>solution. Bell/Boeing have this ambition that their baby using their
>>technology is going to work, no matter how much it costs or how long it
>>takes. It seems to me they have the US taxpayers over a barrel, however
>>much it's costs, throwing good money after bad.
>>
>>> Unlike the jet, it's also more efficient at cruise for
>>>better range.
>>
>>On the other hand, the jet didn't take 20 years of development with
>>hundreds of millions of dollars spent, still without making it to
>>operational status. There comes a point when you have to put it out of
>>its misery and look for something else.
>
> Hmm. Whittle's first patent was 1930 (after he'd been working on jets
> for a while), and the first successful jet aircraft arrived in what
> '44? So 14 years, and jets were hardly reliable at that point, and not
> for many years afterwards.

And the first successful jet airliners didn't enter service until
1958. (Comet IV and Boeing 707). As for jets being "safe" and
"proven: before then, hop on over to teh USAF Safety Office's website
& look though both the total loss number and loss rate data for, say,
the F-84, the F-86, the F-100, and the B-47. Safe they certainly
weren't.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Kevin Brooks]

John Halliwell > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Kevin
> Brooks > writes
> >I guess the lesson here is supposed to be that if there are
> >developmental problems, the program should be immediately killed, huh
> >Bill? One wonders how many aircraft that kind of thinking would have
> >left us with in the past...
>
> Immediately killed is one thing, struggling on for twenty years is quite
> another. It seems to me it is time to either put it into service (and
> accept the losses that will occur) or scrap the idea. Even if all the
> problems are fixed, there will still be losses, will the first take it
> out of service for another 5 years?

The development process has indeed been tedious. IMO, we should have
procured some new interim helos while we continued the R&D effort, but
that would now probably be not worth the cost and trouble. But the
fact is that the military still actively wants and believes in the
program (rarely do disparate agencies like the USMC, USAF, ARNG, and
USN agree on much else), and the civil world appears to think the 609
version will be worth owning based upon advanced orders, so those who
are declaring it an "obvious" deadbeat program must have some kind of
crystal ball that is unavailable to all of those interested parties.

Brooks


>
> If it so revolutionary for the Marines requirements, then the risk is
> probably worth taking anyway if it reduces 'risk' from enemy action.

[Chad Irby]

John Halliwell > wrote:

> If you're starting from scratch, Bell have been trying to get the tilt
> rotor to work for 30-40 years with little to show for it.

....except for an aircraft that outflies anything else in its class.

Even their old *prototype* tiltrotors could outrun most modern-day
copters.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
John Halliwell > wrote:

> In article >, Chad Irby
> > writes
> >Name one that doesn't suck fuel like crazy.
>
> The Rotordyne wasn't a bad start, with an extra 20 years development who
> knows where it might be. There are likely to be other technologies which
> could do a similar or better job. If Bell/Boeing could see beyond the
> tilt rotor, better opportunities might develop faster.

The problem with the Rotodyne was that is developed about half of its
lift from the (extremely large) rotor, which means it would suffer from
the same problems that helicopters have at high speed, moderated only
somewhat by the fixed wing.

> >Overall, the "troubled" development of the Osprey is going to take less
> >time than the fairly-tame design goals of the Eurofighter.
>
> Time will tell on that one.

Since the Osprey is in final flight test prior to full deployment, it's
going to start seeing service next year. It's going to beat the
development time of the Eurofighter by at *least* a couple of years,
unless the Eurofighter manages to go back in time.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[John Penta]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 03:04:40 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>Since the Osprey is in final flight test prior to full deployment, it's
>going to start seeing service next year. It's going to beat the
>development time of the Eurofighter by at *least* a couple of years,
>unless the Eurofighter manages to go back in time.

<arch eyebrow Spock-like> Where'd you see that?

[Chad Irby]

John Penta > wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 03:04:40 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >Since the Osprey is in final flight test prior to full deployment, it's
> >going to start seeing service next year. It's going to beat the
> >development time of the Eurofighter by at *least* a couple of years,
> >unless the Eurofighter manages to go back in time.
>
> <arch eyebrow Spock-like> Where'd you see that?

Because it's only been 17 years for the Osprey versus 20 for the
Eurofighter, and they're at the same stage of acceptance. Eurofighters
were delivered this year to Spain and Germany, and they're testing them
and starting initial instructor training on them, while developing
maintenance and support systems. Ospreys were delivered this year to
the USAF, and they're doing the same things.

Even with the extra tests for the Osprey (the High Rate Descent and
Ring-State issues), they're not that far from initial ops. Heck, some
Marines were wanting to use them in Iraq this Spring...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[John Penta]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 04:07:19 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>John Penta > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 03:04:40 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>>
>> >Since the Osprey is in final flight test prior to full deployment, it's
>> >going to start seeing service next year. It's going to beat the
>> >development time of the Eurofighter by at *least* a couple of years,
>> >unless the Eurofighter manages to go back in time.
>>
>> <arch eyebrow Spock-like> Where'd you see that?
>
>Because it's only been 17 years for the Osprey versus 20 for the
>Eurofighter, and they're at the same stage of acceptance. Eurofighters
>were delivered this year to Spain and Germany, and they're testing them
>and starting initial instructor training on them, while developing
>maintenance and support systems. Ospreys were delivered this year to
>the USAF, and they're doing the same things.
>
>Even with the extra tests for the Osprey (the High Rate Descent and
>Ring-State issues), they're not that far from initial ops. Heck, some
>Marines were wanting to use them in Iraq this Spring...

No, I was asking where'd you see that Osprey is in final flight test
prior to IOC?

I've heard it's farther from the field than that, is all.

[Kevin Brooks]

John Penta > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 04:07:19 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >John Penta > wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 03:04:40 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Since the Osprey is in final flight test prior to full deployment, it's
> >> >going to start seeing service next year. It's going to beat the
> >> >development time of the Eurofighter by at *least* a couple of years,
> >> >unless the Eurofighter manages to go back in time.
> >>
> >> <arch eyebrow Spock-like> Where'd you see that?
> >
> >Because it's only been 17 years for the Osprey versus 20 for the
> >Eurofighter, and they're at the same stage of acceptance. Eurofighters
> >were delivered this year to Spain and Germany, and they're testing them
> >and starting initial instructor training on them, while developing
> >maintenance and support systems. Ospreys were delivered this year to
> >the USAF, and they're doing the same things.
> >
> >Even with the extra tests for the Osprey (the High Rate Descent and
> >Ring-State issues), they're not that far from initial ops. Heck, some
> >Marines were wanting to use them in Iraq this Spring...
>
> No, I was asking where'd you see that Osprey is in final flight test
> prior to IOC?
>
> I've heard it's farther from the field than that, is all.

Best I can determine, the EMD phase kicked back into gear in DEC 01
(with renewed flight time kicking off in May 02), and was scheduled to
end this coming December, which by coincidence happens to be the same
month that the OPEVAL squadron at New River MCAS comes completely back
to life. OPEVAL is to continue through 2004, which would mean that
yes, they will get an IOC of sorts next year.

Brooks