A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 26th 03, 07:50 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Navy special operations command version of the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft


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)

Mo
http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=867...a&s=rb0309 23

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

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,
  #2  
Old September 26th 03, 10:30 PM
Thomas Schoene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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)




  #3  
Old September 27th 03, 02:23 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


Mo
http://q1.schwab.com/s/r?l=248&a=867...a&s=rb0309 23

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

  #4  
Old September 27th 03, 03:18 AM
Bill Silvey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #5  
Old September 27th 03, 03:08 PM
Blair Maynard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


-----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-----



  #6  
Old September 27th 03, 03:42 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Bill Silvey" wrote in message om...
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
  #7  
Old September 27th 03, 04:34 PM
TJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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









  #8  
Old September 27th 03, 04:42 PM
Bill Silvey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.

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.


  #9  
Old September 27th 03, 06:08 PM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.
  #10  
Old September 27th 03, 08:45 PM
Blair Maynard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


-----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-----



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sport Pilot cuts off special issuance at the knees Juan~--~Jimenez Home Built 40 August 10th 04 01:19 PM
FA: Navy & Marine Planes In Korea War Book - $3 - Ends Tomorrow Disgo Aviation Marketplace 0 February 22nd 04 05:58 PM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM
Combat Related Special Compensation update for Sept. 8-12 Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 September 17th 03 03:38 AM
FS Books USAF, Navy, Marine pilots and planes Ken Insch Military Aviation 0 July 20th 03 02:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.