Disclaimer, I don't fly. Wish I did, but I don't. My third chopper ride was into a dead volcano in Hawaii. The pilot was a viet vet and he gave me a a ride more exciting and beautiful than any roller coaster. I'll never forget the descent - we hit 1400 feet per minute downward. He told me he had gone much faster, picking up wounded or stranded soldiers. It turned out that despite all protections, he was shot down twice. He was describing his war history just as he pointed out a school of dolphins who always came to greet him. They would wait until he hovered, then they began to make a small circle and swim around. Never less than 20 dolphins, always meeting him the same way, clockwise. between his story and the sights and sensations, it was a hell of a trip.
Back to the present.
We've lost many helicopters to arms fire, missiles, explosions etc. WE've also lost others because of the conditions that exist there. The pentagon is reluctant to give numbers, but reliable sources say that we've lost 130 choppers, 1/3 to enemy fire.
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2007411233546.aspunfortunately, it takes two years to build a replacement. The conclusion is inescapable - the cupboard is bare. not enough choppers, even though the need for air mobility has increased.
With great fanfare, the Pentagon anounced that they would be sending the first Osprey chopper/plane hybrids to Iraq. "Because of their great capacity and speed." "Because they have the necessary heavy lift capacity." "Because they are an important asset in the war on terra."
Hmm. sounds good, no? But wait. I seem to recall something on PBS. Let's see if the tubes still have it. aha
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june01/osprey_1-22.html20 years ago, after UK's falklands battle, the US wanted to replace its aging fleet of choppers and come up with a new and improved manner to transport lots of troops and equipment, but without the need for an airfield, a floating airport, or even a rough flat bit of land. The concept of the Osprey was hatched. Like a cracked egg.
The idea was simple. combine the best of planes AND choppers, and you solve many problems. PLus, it caused billions to flow to the arms merchants that hired retiring military who would provide this new tool to the military until they retired and joined the arms merchants that hired retiring military who would provide . . . . . you get the idea.
Unfortunately, the machine was a collection of rot, despite billions, and multiple repair efforts. The Military and Corporate arms dealers even faked maintenance and readiness data to avoid congressional scrutiny. That disasterous clusterfuck came out after too many crashes and too many deaths, even for the greedy arms merchants. Lots of people were punished for their crimes. Didn't bring back 23 dead marines, though. The entire concept, in retrospect, had serious design problems, and several top experts admitted that no amount of tweaking would or could fix it. The program was grounded, then shelved.
or so we thought.
The Osprey was supposed to move large numbers of troops in flocks, storming beaches or hard to reach areas en masse. Except, if they landed too close or too soon to each other, the vortex their design caused would make the second, third, fourth osprey crash. Even worse, landing at high speed created a vortex even one crash by losing all lift.
Even if the leaky, balky and hard to maintain hydraulic system could be patched the V-22 could not come even close to fullfilling its original mission.
Here's the kicker. Landing today's Osprey is troubling and difficult, even with computer assistance. the maximum speed downward is 800 feet per minute, far less than a commercial toy, and for less than any military grade chopper. In essence, it is a sitting duck when it tries to land.
Another problem. To make it a major air lift vehicle, they had to keep it light. Any heavier, and its range would be pathetic, nor could it carry enough troops, arms, or equipment to make it worthwhile. So, they used strong, ultra-light and unusual materials. Unfortunately, there is no armor on these beasts. A slow landing, an unarmored, big fat target? precisely what we have.
If you think that sending troops in unarmored hummers was bad, remember that these beasts seat 20. And remember that they are still not sure that all the bugs were fixed.
One more thing. These beasts allegedly cost $68,000,000 each. But that's only if you erase all of the development, repair, re-development, re-repair, re-design, maintenance, re-re-re-design costs and more. After all the billions spent in development and design, the cost of these beasts sky rockets. But, hey, its only taxpayer money, right?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
