Why has the world been so slow to adopt the Osprey?
It's safety record now matches or exceeds that of helicopters.
It's safe enough that the President has multiple of them assigned for travel.
It is versatile and robust.
And it has served long enough that the multiple models are now being designed.
Why the hesitation?
>>29289201
>Why has the world been so slow to adopt the Osprey?
Expensive and occupies a role most militaries haven't really considered
>It's safety record now matches or exceeds that of helicopters.
It's nowhere near as widely used as them, it's a bad comparison to make
>>29289201
Because without the likes of the US's stupendous economy and subsequently enormous military budget, a V-22 costs somewhere around twice as much as a CH-47, and most nations don't need the range or speed the Osprey offers.
Who the fuck wants them?
>>29289201
Money.
>>29289258
You can do more with an Osprey
>>29289308
Yeah but if you have a choice between a helo, a normal plane, and an osprey, what tiny percentage of the time would the osprey actually be the best choice of the 3?
They're luxury items. Yes, they work. No, no one really needs them badly enough to pay for them.
>>29289201
>It's safety record now matches or exceeds that of helicopters.
they haven't been used NEARLY as long as helicopters, anything new is easy to get a good safety record on, if you know what you are doing, if you make one flight with it, and nothing goes wrong you have a 100% safety record, what matters is how intact that record stays over time.
>>29289218
>Expensive and occupies a role most militaries haven't really considered
basically what this Anon says. most grunts i talk to view it as a novelty as well.
>>29289201
The president doesn't ride in the V-22.... It's not a white top transport. It's only used for support of marine one.
So I guess they still don't trust it.
>>29289354
300,000 flight hours is significant.
The MH-60S has about twice that.
The Osprey gets safer and safer the more they fly it, so unless you forsee them begin to self destruct between now and the time they reach the 600k fhr time, they will be as dependable if not more so than the helicopters the USN flies today
>>29289420
Isn't it a little misleading to have Reagan in there? He was excluded from overseas service, he made propaganda movies for the whole war.
>>29289431
this is a fair point, but compared to planes and choppers they use most often the Osprey will be be the least tried aircraft for awhile, and until it fills a needed role it will remain untried because there is no real need to pilot it.
>>29289201
At this point I think it's about the cost of purchase and the cost of operating them. Al the countries who actually have the necessary funds to run ospreys prefer domestic alternatives.
>>29289532
Anon has a point, I was on an osprey once and when we got to the FOB the locals thought it was a fucking spaceship. I can count on one hand, all the countries that can mass produce and apply the osprey effectively.
>>29289201
Ospreys have killed more marines than the taliban lol
>>29292044
weak b8, m8
>>29289258
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/01/the-100-year-helicopter-sign-of-army-helo-fleets-vulnerability/
>In fact, said Lundy, the last CH-47 Chinook won’t retire until 2065, a century after the aircraft first entered service in Vietnam: “It’s going to be a 100-year aircraft because we don’t have a replacement.”
>>29289201
maintenance and training costs
In those terms, the V-22 doesn't even begin to compete with turboprop Fokkers or Cessnas. That said, in a few years it'll likely change as deliveries increase, and the economy of scale drives prices of pilot training and maintenance down. Also there's no civilian version yet, or any other sizes available (some countries/companies want a blackhawk sized tiltrotor, others want a C-130 sized one).
Give it a few years.
>>29289308
But it costs twice as much as a Chinook.
>>29289273
The only country I can think of that might have a use for them is the UK. As an AEW or airborne refueller for the Queen Elizabeth class carriers.
>>29289476
It's pretty misleading to have W in there too.
The V-22 exists because generals always fight the last war. In case it isn't obvious, the V-22 is perfectly suited for island hopping in the South Pacific. They can even fit inside littoral combat ships. Should another major conflict break out there V-22s will be spammed like Hueys were.
Anyway, not many countries have this need. The few others that do are either dirt poor (the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia) or are Japan and Australia (who are buying V-22s as well).
I actually saw one today flying over where I work. First time seeing one irl.
>>29289201
As others have mentioned, maintenance costs are a major inhibiting factor as is training. Also as >>29292102 says, there's only one size and that size isn't very economical. It's too large/heavy to do air taxi services in major urban areas (also too loud) but too small for regional commercial flights (which themselves aren't very profitable in many places, including the US).
The V-22 is a purpose-built cargo plane that excels in places where space is extremely limited (like navy ships). In order for it to break out and be mainstream, much larger variants have to be built.
related:
http://rotorcraft.arc.nasa.gov/Research/Programs/LCTR.html
>>29289201
I've seen a decent amount of crashed Ospreys OP. For how many there are, that's kind of concerning.
>>29292236
This, more than anything else, is what the V-22 competes with. At least in the civilian market.
Related
http://youtu.be/u8mJCc69sCY
>>29292259
Go google crashed Blackhawks and Hueys and you'll find just as many, if not more pictures.
>>29292285
I'm in favor of the Osprey, but that's a shit comparison.
Both have been around for far longer than the V-22 and they've had a lot more time to crash.
>>29292311
Blackhawks and Hueys crashed quite often in their early years as well. No vehicle is perfect.
>>29292120
Didn't W fly jets?
>>29292236
>Huge props, bro.
>>29292342
He was in the Air National Guard. He did fly jets, but he was never deployed and never saw combat.
>>29292334
Exactly, but the point I'm making is that it's shitty to point at the Huey and Blackhawk and say "look those crashed way more".
>>29289476
So he saw exactly as much combat as Ike.
>>29292170
Honestly that sounds like gearing up for the next war.
Too bad WW3 in the South China Sea is never going to happen.
Has terrible high altitude performance
Creates huge dust clouds anytime it lands off a paved area
Can easily shoot up debris into its engines
Very expensive
Very low payload if it has to lift vertically
It was a first generation tilt rotor design, so its a pile of shit compared to a modern tilt rotor design like the V-280.
Overall the only practical use of the V-22 is long ranged troop ferry missions that for some reason need VTOL, such as off an amphibious assault ship
Of course they could have just built super carrier amphibs, and used a CATOBAR transport aircraft for half the cost/greater range/greater payload.
>>29292459
>High altitude performance.
Still flies higher than any other comparable helicopter.
>Dust clouds and debis
What is literally every helicopter ever.
>Low VTOL payload
Good thing the Osprey is capable of STOVL and is much more efficient at it than helicopters.
>First gen design
Well you need to start somewhere. Arguable the V-280 never would've gotten off the ground if the Osprey didn't prove it could be done.
Also
>Marines
>shelling out for CATOBAR they don't actually need.
>>29292414
all it takes is a tariff on chinese goods and an embargo on exports into them to make them poor and desperate enough to go full retard
>>29292370
The Osprey crashes way less than UH-1 or Blackhawk.
Happy now?
>>29292564
They'll go full retard into Africa to strip mine minerals before they actually start shit in the SCS. At least with anyone they know has backup from a reasonably powerful country.
>>29292548
>shelling out for CATOBAR they don't actually need.
C-130 is the same price as a V-22,
Except it carries more and goes further, could have bought conventional supercarrier amphibs & operated large fixed wing aircraft instead of choppers/tilt rotors.
>Still flies higher than any other comparable helicopter.
In airplane mode, not in hover mode.
>What is literally every helicopter ever.
Much more powerful downwash, and sucks shit into its engines, not the same as other helicopters.
The V-280 likely would have still arrived even if the Osprey was canceled.
You don't need to buy hundreds of "prototype" tilt rotors.
>>29289354
>anything new is easy to get a good safety record on
180 degrees from correct.
>>29292264
Hell I know a lot of places in the civilian market they still use C-54s, DC3s and Electras
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8mJCc69sCY
>>29292395
Ike served in two world wars plus the interwar period. He was due to see combat in WW1, but the war ended before the tank unit he was commanding was able to be sent to europe. By the US involvement in WW2 he was too high in rank to be put on the front lines. There's a huge difference between a career that includes being the supreme allied commander and one that peaks as a propoganda film actor.
Eisenhower was probably the most qualified militarily of any president by having nearly 40 years experience before his presidency.
>>29292170
UK and France are considering them for COD duty on carriers, same as the USN will be using them for.
Makes sense really. Especially for France who has absolutely no COD at all planned for its carrier, not even any decent sized helos, even the UK at least has Chinooks in a pinch.
>>29295478
Why would the CdG need COD if it never leaves port, anon?
Has it reached production status yet?
>>29292285
>10000 helis around since 1980 crash more often than 1000 since 2005
Wow what an amazing observation!
>>29292564
That's funny considering trade imp/ex with America only makes up 7% of their economy.
>>29295478
COD?
>>29292264
No. There are dedicated light transport aircraft(C-212, MA60,ATR-72,etc) that can operate in rough airstrip.
Really,there is very little, if any, civilian application of this aircraft. In fact, you could buy 4 brand new C-212 (with cheaper parts, existing maintenance lines, retained ground crew, etc)
>>29295657
Carrier Onboard Delivery
Basically cargo aircraft flying stuff (parts, mail, VIPs, etc.) out to carriers at sea
>>29289211
AUTOBOTS, ROLL OUT
>>29289308
>all those CH-53s
Why do I love them so much?
The presidents grunts travel in V-22s, he would never ride in one himself
>>29289201
>Safety record
Helicopters of all shapes and sizes have been in service across the globe for 70+ years, and will continue to do so. The Osprey's barely pushing 20 years, with some very notable teething issues under its belt. Not really comparable for another few decades.
>the President has multiple of them assigned for travel
Barely factually correct. The V-22s in service with HMX-1 are not authorized for transport to or from the White House, on account of the engines wrecking the South Lawn. That said, the V-22 serves in a utility role, and could conceivably serve as Marine One in a pinch.
>It is versatile and robust
Versatile? Yes. Robust? See above comments
>And it has served long enough that the multiple models are now being designed
Irrelevant to the point.
>Why the hesitation?
The V-22 is the result of filling a niche only the US Armed Forces have; a fast, long-range VTOL troop transport, that can operate from the decks of ships, urban terrain, or mountaintop FOBs. And, most significantly, can be designed and manufactured on a monstrous budget. Very few other national militaries have that role in mind, or the money to pay for it. If they need a troop transport of that size, they can buy a Chinook. If they need amphibious assault capability, they can buy a Sea Stallion. Very few countries outside the United States have the means or intent to buy a V-22, for very good reason.
In summary, fuck you and your shit thread OP.
>>29292259
but why did you post a picture of a CH-53 in a V-22 tread?
>>29289201
I'll say this, I used to be an aircraft mechanic, and while the osprey is cool, that shit is a mechanics nightmare. The money, part, maintenance requirements and down time that thing need is obtuse, it's just not as cool as it looks. I mean you could spend way less and get war more from something/s else.
>>29289201
Also
>And it has served long enough that the multiple models are now being designed.
You've got it backwards, military contracted aircraft are initially made using multiple designs from the beginning, not after in use.
>>29292096
To be fair, the CH-47 is still effective in it's role, much like the A-10.
Though I don't see why there couldn't be a variant of the V-22 that allowed the rotors to operate while the rotor assembly is in the compacted position so that the V-22 could fly in a manner similar to the chinook to allow it to also undertake that role.
>>29298810
Why would you do that though? The Chinook literally is best for the job regardless. It's got space, it's one of the faster helos and doesn't require the learning curve.
>>29289201
expensive and no one is really spending on defense these days.
>>29298810
The Chinook is being lifted by a Russian Helicopter
Such disgrace.
>>29298898
You clearly don't know how DART or transport works.
>>29298918
Still a disgrace.
>>29296836
looks and sounds sexy
>>29292259
well, if you keep mistaking CH-53's for V-22's then yeah, that is a bit disturbing
>>29298936
You still don't know what you're talking about. Please tell me what other helicopter, other than an Mi-26 will lift a Chinook in Afghanistan?
>>29289420
>Being a pilot makes you a great president.
'Murica
>>29292564
Make America great again
I wached one literally burst into flames at KAF. Fuck that gender bending aircraft.
>>29295409
It wasn't because of his rank. It was because Marshall had recognized his talent.
>>29292102
>fokker
>>29292564
Too bad the US needs China more for there economy than the other way around.
>>29299182
nice b8 m8
>>29299182
7/10 good format
>>29299101
when was this? the whole incident-list on V-22's arent that long
>>29299190
>>29299194
>Don't know economics
>Only watch FOX
>Vote Trump
>>29289420
wearing a uniform =/= combat action
They're all privelidged pussy eaters
>>29299302
Kennedy was on a shitty ass PT boat in the Pacific you idiot.
>>29299247
Early 2014
>>29299606
do you know if it was a USMC or Air Force bird? I cant find any notes on any fire-related damages to V-22's in 2014, and that includes even the most v-22 hating, MIC-conspiratory web page i could find, http://www.g2mil.com/V-22Amishaps.htm
>>29289211
>>29299302
Ike was not to be fucked with.
>>29299302
bush sr was literally shot down while bombing japs
>>29299624
Thats how they get their "safest helicopter ever"
Blatant bullshitting
Can you imagine the next war, what are the marines going to do with their useless V-22's
