The training squadron is here in Albuquerque, they fly past my house (often level with my house, lol (I'm 1500 ft above town)) all the time. A friend knows a guy with the squadron who told him if you ever see 2 at once flying, that's a good day, and if you see 3, mark you calendar, it's a banner day. Keeping them running is a bit of an issue, but other than that they seem OK so far.

I thought the last article I read said they were intentionally avoiding the more dangerous spots with Ospreys, if that's the case maybe they are still fudging the data.

I'd like to see it die because I'm tired of projecting power, lets go back to landing craft with detroit diesels. Obviously if our gear is too good, there seems to be too much urge to use it.

Not a bad idea, taking the isolationist route that allowed Japan to take over most of the pacific... Or Germany to take over Europe, twice.

Projection of power has prevented more wars than it's caused. Korea? China/Taiwain/HongKong. Germany during the cold war? The fact that each countries allies could mount a rapid response to any invasion kept the aggressors at bay.

As mentioned, Like the Harrier, the Osprey had it's growing pains. Which killed more in testing? Osprey or Harrier? It's gotta be close. And yet when the harrier was taken away from the RN recently, everybody threw a fit.

Once the osprey has settled in, and they start deploying it in all it's usable roles (Insertion, SAR, Transport, etc), people will come to rely on it's presence.

Our nuclear arsenal seems like more of a deterrent to me than an Osprey, would really work great for us now(where is Truman when you need him). Save us the cost of getting rid of nukes later too.

Allow me to be a cynic
 

but it reeks of being a propaganda piece.

It starts by trying to influence our feelings with a positive anecdote. However, it has little to do with the hopes originally pinned on the V-22 - it was not meant to be a SAR aircraft that flies out with maybe 1-2 medics / rescuemen and picks up one passenger, but a transport for 20+ - thus its helicopter performance under load was not tested. Given the slant of the article, if the rescue scene can be written up as risky, it would be, and it was not, so we can assume the rescue was in a relatively leisurely, low-threat environment rather than enemies actually shooting at it - thus conveniently avoiding a weakness pointed out by critics. The article also shies away from actually demonstrating that a slower conventional helo couldn't have performed the rescue.

After some rather bland history and some vague praise for the aircraft from un-named Marine commanders, the article suggests the aircraft has a very good safety record. However, it should be noted that critics suggest this safe record is because:

http://www.g2mil.com/V-22-Iraq.htm

Basically, the critic's argument is that the flight safety was achieved by deliberately giving very safe missions to the V-22 (which means other heloes pick up the dangerous slack, thus worsening their statistics). Of course, it is hard for us to know how true this is, but the anecdote chosen by your pro-V-22 article hardly refutes this hypothesis.

In the next paragraph, the article tries to divert our attention from the fact a V-22 flipped over by saying "only" 4 guys were killed. Oh, how callous. The survivability features might be great, but it is not hard to suspect that the V-22's side by side rotor configuration combined with unreliability created the necessary conditions for a flipover and "high speed collision with the ground" in the first place, so if they were riding something else, they would never flip and never have to test the installed survivability features...

As for the "cheapest cost per seat mile" among "rotorcraft", well, of course, in its plane mode it should be more efficient than a helicopter, but how does it compare to a plane?

After a few bland reassurances that the problems have been solved, article heads to a criticism of Armed Forces procurement system, a game that's played by both sides, and transitions to proposing the Air Force buy V-22 for the SAR role.

First, in advocating it for the SAR role, already the original purpose of the V-22 is being quietly forgotten. And yes, there is certainly a band of ranges where a plane-helo hybrid can go and a helo can't, but whether that it worth paying vastly greater amounts of money is a more complicated problem. Especially when you consider the V-22's disadvantages in size, its ability to get down quickly due to VRS problems (it may be faster on the cruise, but counting more in a hot zone is its ability to get down and finish unloading/loading quickly).

But the article does not go into depth, and tries to play on our feelings with human lives. It then proceeds to vaguely insist it will be superior in other missions, and tries to make the V-22 a victim.

God, what a piece of propaganda. And crappy propaganda - since good propaganda should be almost un-noticeable as such. The V-22 may or may not be getting better (though IMO the critics make sense), but this article clearly will not be the doubt-clearer.

So you are a proponent of nuking anybody who we are at war with.

:up:

You have fun with that.

So much for a serious discussion. :eyeroll:

Well said. All of it, not just the main points I chose to quote. Amongst military organizations, the Marines Corps has a decided mastery of propaganda, as evidenced by its reputation despite a history of catastrophic failures.

For instance, does anyone remember Belleau Wood? Significant infantry battle during WW1, immortalized as a victory for the Marine Corps? It was nothing of the sort. The attacking Marines were all but annihilated. They made a frontal attack without artillery support and the Germans tore them to shreds. Units from US and French armies then launched a supporting attack and claimed the area, but only because the Germans had all but exhausted their ammunition shooting at the Marines. Brave? Yes. Admirable? Sort of. Tactically desirable? Not in the least. And yet this disaster is somehow ingrained in the public consciousness as a victory for the Corps. The Corps still trumpets this "victory" today.

Thus, it doesn't really surprise me that the Marine Corps would fudge tests to get good results. Actually, the whole armed services do that all the time, the Marines are just better at it.

What good has limited war EVER done us? War shouldn't be something we play at, we're either "in it to win it" or we should save the expense for more productive uses(a real reach here talking about gov't spending). :arrgh!:

So nuclear war is winning?

I found this from site Kazuaki posted here http://www.g2mil.com/Duma.htm.

I have not read OPEVAL II myself yet but if this is correct then I have to admit that I have had too rosy idea of V-22 Osprey.