Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will NeedFixes

You really think that any Senator is going to vote against a major DOD
program if it means losing jobs (and thus votes) in their home state? That's
why Cranston put his nuclear-freeze ideology aside and voted for the B-1B.
And you're assuming that Kay Bailey Hutchinson decides to run for Governor
of Texas. If she doesn't, and stays in the Senate...
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
...
On Mar 29, 12:42 am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
You'd be surprised: CA Senator Alan Cranston was a nuclear freezenik to
the
core back in the '80s, but when the B-1B came up for votes in the Senate,
he
always voted for it: it was built in Palmdale, CA. Any Texas Senator is
going to vote for V-22 on that basis."Jack Linthicum"
wrote in message

...
On Mar 28, 3:44 pm, Vincent Brannigan wrote:



Jack Linthicum wrote:
On Mar 28, 1:28 pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Mar 28, 8:38 am, Bill Kambic wrote:

On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:54:30 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
wrote:
What you are missing is my response was simply to the claim that
this
was " the type of stuff that happens with any new
aircraft."
It's not a "new aircraft"
"New" has nothing to do with age; it has everything to do with time
in
service.
Something Vkince and the anti V-22 crowd seem to ignore.

Twenty years of flight and still new. Interesting idea, stupid, but
interesting.

This turkey needs every excuse it can find

Vince

Wait until Texas goes Democratic in 2010. Kay Bailey Hutchinson wants
to be governor, opening up a Senate seat. and at least six more due
to retirees up for grabs

I recommend you to the recent doings in the U.S. Senate. Obama had to
promise more than he wished to, because he lacked two Senators. One
sits in Minnesota, waiting for the losing candidate to admit defeat.
That person admits only that he wants to keep Franken out of the
Senate. Add two or more in 2010 and the promises necessary to buy
those three Republican votes go out the window and the real DoD budget
crunch descends.

Bet you won't have Vkince or the other "Bash the Osprey" crowd admit that.
They're so fixated on bashing the V-22 that they don't suggest any
alternatives, other than a "generic" helo.
"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message
newsbLzl.19022$Db2.14441@edtnps83...
Matt Wiser wrote:
And nobody's getting the ball rolling on a V-22 replacement. Which
means,
like it or not, it's the V-22 by default. The anti-Osprey crowd keeps
shreiking "No V-22s", without any suggestion of a OTS or other
replacement;
being against the V-22 has taken on religious overtones in some circles.
(the New York Twits' editorial board being the leader of the pack) H-46s
are
going to the desert parking lot in Arizona as fast as new Ospreys come
off
the line and crews get transitioned, so the time to get a new helo to
replace the Osprey (if you can find one) is either now, or never.
[ SNIP ]

That's one thing I haven't suggested - getting rid of the Osprey. As far
as I am concerned it works well enough, we're getting it, so live with it.

My observation wrt the CH-46 was for the early '90's period. The problem
with the helicopters then was substantially that they were getting old,
not that they were crappy (*). _At that time_, _if_ a decision had been
made to restart production (basic airframe, but avionics improvements),
new CH-46s would have been available to replace aged CH-46s now and over
the next few years.

That decision was not made, so it's the MV-22 or bust.

AHS

* You can almost always argue that something can be improved, or that
there's a more capable replacement. What often doesn't get argued is why
do you need something better if the current thing is good enough.

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:22:20 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
wrote:

Kerryn Offord wrote:
Matt Wiser wrote:
Bet you won't have Vkince or the other "Bash the Osprey" crowd admit
that.
They're so fixated on bashing the V-22 that they don't suggest any
alternatives, other than a "generic" helo.

SNIP

Any other generic helicopter can do nearly everything the V-22 can do,
and are cheaper, more reliable, and have a lot more room inside (So
troops can not only stand up, but walk out the back side by side.

The "problem" is. these "generic" helicopters aren't made in the US (If
the UH-60 series isn't considered suitable).


Right

the V-22 chant is 'WE SPENT ALLL THE MONEY ONE THIS TURKEY SO YOU HAVE
TO BUY IT"

No you don't

You dont reinforce failure

How much is your share of AIG?

Peter Skelton

On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:45:01 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
wrote:

Peter Skelton wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:22:20 GMT, Vincent Brannigan
wrote:

Kerryn Offord wrote:
Matt Wiser wrote:
Bet you won't have Vkince or the other "Bash the Osprey" crowd admit
that.
They're so fixated on bashing the V-22 that they don't suggest any
alternatives, other than a "generic" helo.
SNIP

Any other generic helicopter can do nearly everything the V-22 can do,
and are cheaper, more reliable, and have a lot more room inside (So
troops can not only stand up, but walk out the back side by side.

The "problem" is. these "generic" helicopters aren't made in the US (If
the UH-60 series isn't considered suitable).

Right

the V-22 chant is 'WE SPENT ALLL THE MONEY ONE THIS TURKEY SO YOU HAVE
TO BUY IT"

No you don't

You dont reinforce failure

How much is your share of AIG?

Peter Skelton

The AIG bailout per se is not reinforcing failure, it is damage control.

Dunkirk comes to mind

The AIG bailout is like rewarding the leadership that led to
Dunkirk. I can understand why Ramsay deserved his reward, but
Gamelin desrved none.


Peter Skelton

On Mar 31, 2:11*am, Kerryn Offord wrote:
Matt Wiser wrote:
Bet you won't have Vkince or the other "Bash the Osprey" crowd admit that.
They're so fixated on bashing the V-22 that they don't suggest any
alternatives, other than a "generic" helo.

SNIP

Any other generic helicopter can do nearly everything the V-22 can do,
and are cheaper, more reliable, and have a lot more room inside (So
troops can not only stand up, but walk out the back side by side.

The "problem" is. these "generic" helicopters aren't made in the US (If
the UH-60 series isn't considered suitable).

NH-90http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHI_NH90
Specifications
General characteristics
* * ** Crew: 2 pilots and a mechanic
* * ** Capacity: 20 troops/12 stretchers
* * ** Length: 16.13 m (52 ft 11 in)
* * ** Rotor diameter: 16.30 m (53 ft 5¾ in)
* * ** Height: 5.23 m (17 ft 2 in)
* * ** Empty weight: 5,400 kg (11,900 lb)
* * ** Max takeoff weight: 10,600 kg (23,370 lb)
* * ** Powerplant: 2× Rolls-Royce Turbomeca RTM322-01/9 turboshaft,
1,662 kW (2,230 shp) each, or:
* * ** Powerplant: 2× General Electric T700-T6E turboshafts, 1,577 kW
(2,115 shp) each
Performance
* * ** Maximum speed: 300 km/h (162 knots, 186 mph)
* * ** Range: 800 km, 497 mi (TTH); 1,000 km, 621 mi (NFH) ()
* * ** Service ceiling: 2,960 m (9,711 ft)
* * ** Rate of climb: 480 m/min (1,574 ft/m)

and EH-101 (medium lift..)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EH-101
Specifications (Merlin HM1)
RAF Merlins testing flares

General characteristics

* * ** Crew: 4
* * ** Capacity:
* * * * * *o 24 seated troops or
* * * * * *o 45 standing troops or
* * * * * *o 16 stretchers with medics
* * ** Length: 22.81 m (74 ft 10 in)
* * ** Rotor diameter: 18.59 m (61 ft 0 in)
* * ** Height: 6.65 m (21 ft 10 in)
* * ** Disc area: 271 m² (2,992 ft²)
* * ** Empty weight: 10,500 kg (23,150 lb)
* * ** Useful load: 5,443 kg (12,000 lb)
* * ** Max takeoff weight: 15,600 kg (32,188 lb)
* * ** Powerplant: 3× Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca RTM322-01 turboshafts, 1,725
kW (2,312 shp) each
Performance
* * ** Never exceed speed: 309 km/h (167 knots, 192 mph)
* * ** Range: 1,389 km (750 nm, 863 mi)
* * ** Service ceiling: 4,575 m (15,000ft)
* * ** Rate of climb: 10.2 m/s (2,000 ft/min)
* * ** Disc loading: 53.8 kg/m² (11.01 lb/ft²)
* * ** Power/mass: 284.9 W/kg (0.174 shp/lb)
Armament
* * ** Guns: 5× general purpose machine guns
* * ** Bombs: 960 kg (2,116 lb) of anti-ship missiles (up to 2), homing
torpedoes (up to 4), depth charges and rockets
Avionics
* * ** Smiths Industries OMI SEP 20 dual-redundant digital automatic
flight control system
* * ** Navigation systems:
* * * * * *o BAE Systems LINS 300 ring laser gyro, Litton Italia
LISA-4000 strapdown AHRS (naval variants)
* * * * * *o Tactical air navigation (TACAN), VHF Omnidirectional Radio
range (VOR), instrument landing system (ILS)
* * ** Radar:
* * * * * *o Selex Galileo Blue Kestrel 5000 maritime surveillance radar
(ASW RN EH101s)
* * * * * *o Eliradar MM/APS-784 maritime surveillance radar (ASW
Italian EH101s)
* * * * * *o Eliradar HEW-784 air/surface surveillance radar (AEW variants)
* * * * * *o Officine Galileo MM/APS-705B search/weather radar (Italian
Navy Utility EH101s)
* * * * * *o Telephonics RDR-1600 weather avoidance radar (Royal Danish
Air Force EH101s)
* * * * * *o Galileo APS-717 search/surveillance radar (Portuguese Air
Force EH101s)

Meanwhile the V-22...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22
Specifications (MV-22B)
Data from Boeing Integrated Defense Systems,[49] Naval Air Systems
Command,[50] US Air Force CV-22 fact sheet,[51] and Norton[52]
General characteristics
* * ** Crew: two pilots
* * ** Capacity: 24 troops (seated), 32 troops (floor loaded) or up to
15,000 lb of cargo
* * ** Length: 57 ft 4 in (17.5 m)
* * ** Rotor diameter: 38 ft 0 in (11.6 m)
* * ** Wingspan: 45 ft 10 in (14 m)
* * ** Width with rotors: 84 ft 7 in (25.8 m)
* * ** Height: 22 ft 1 in/6.73 m; overall with nacelles vertical (17 ft
11 in/5.5 m; at top of tailfins)
* * ** Disc area: 2,268 ft² (212 m²)
* * ** Wing area: 301.4 ft² (28 m²)
* * ** Empty weight: 33,140 lb (15,032 kg)
* * ** Loaded weight: 47,500 lb (21,500 kg)
* * ** Max takeoff weight: 60,500 lb (27,400 kg)
* * ** Powerplant: 2× Rolls-Royce Allison T406/AE 1107C-Liberty
turboshafts, 6,150 hp (4,590 kW) each
Performance
* * ** Maximum speed: 305 knots (351 mph, 565 km/h) max operating at
15,000 ft[53]
* * ** Cruise speed: 241 knots (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea level
* * ** Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)
* * ** Combat radius: 370 nmi (430 mi, 690 km)
* * ** Ferry range: 2,417 nmi (2,781 mi, 4,476 km)
* * ** Service ceiling: 26,000 ft (7,925 m)
* * ** Rate of climb: 2,320 ft/min (11.8 m/s)
* * ** Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft² @ 47,500 lb GW (102.23 kg/m²)
* * ** Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)

The EH-101 will be license-built here as the VH-71 "Marine One" helo,
and will probably be adopted by the USAF for a CSAR requirement (a do-
over was ordered after Boeing's problems surfaced the HH-47). NIH
is very strong, and you'd have to have a very good reason to buck that
trend. A coproduction arrangement with most assembly work done here
helps do that. The AF's CSAR community, from what the various aviation
magazines have said, prefers the HH-71 variant, and that it was
strongly implied that the HH-47 was a sop to Boeing for having that
tanker lease deal fall flat. The USMC, though, insists on V-22. And
the AF version is also entering service for Spec Ops work.

Vincent Brannigan wrote:

the V-22 chant is 'WE SPENT ALL THE MONEY ON THIS TURKEY SO YOU HAVE
TO BUY IT"

No you don't

You dont reinforce failure

"That's NOT what I meant when I said, 'Failure is not an option!'"

Dennis

"Dennis" wrote in message
. 1.4...
Vincent Brannigan wrote:

the V-22 chant is 'WE SPENT ALL THE MONEY ON THIS TURKEY SO YOU HAVE
TO BUY IT"

No you don't

You dont reinforce failure

"That's NOT what I meant when I said, 'Failure is not an option!'"

I gather, then, that you're not using a Microsoft product to post.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Andrew Chaplin wrote:

the V-22 chant is 'WE SPENT ALL THE MONEY ON THIS TURKEY SO YOU HAVE
TO BUY IT"

No you don't

You dont reinforce failure

"That's NOT what I meant when I said, 'Failure is not an option!'"

I gather, then, that you're not using a Microsoft product to post.

Actually I'm not. :-) I avoid Megasloth products when I can.

I should have put a smiley with that. :-)

Dennis