Oh, Joy
McClatchy reports that the Osprey finally arrives in a combat zone, after more repairs. Actually, the story indicates that 9 out of 10 arrived, with number 10 still in Jordan for repairs.
It turns out that this is above average for Ospreys, as normally only 8 would have made it and only 6 would be fully operational. For this level of performance the taxpayers shell out about $110 million a copy.
The Blackhawk UH-60 only carries half as many people, but then, it only costs $6.5 million. It doesn’t have the speed, range, or fuel economy of the Osprey, but are those features worth the extra money?
9 comments
The Osprey saga reminds me of of some sort of tale of the undead….defective or non-working parts but impossible to kill.
Even Dick Cheney couldn’t drive a stake through it’s heart.
This is the Military Industrial Complex at its worst. I don’t expect any of them will be able to safely fly out of Iraq after 6 months in the dust and heat. Desert combat eats tanks, so what chance to high tech precision aircraft have?
One has to agree with your “Joy” shtick. We are just over a century into the era of powered flight. Surely most of the good basic designs for aircraft have been thought of and implemented. The Osprey is not among them.
In my opinion, the only thing that keeps it aloft, on the rare occasions it flies, is congressional hot air. As a taxpayer, I want my money back.
They have as many redundant control computers as the space shuttle. This is not something you bet your life on. Simple, but tough is a better design philosophy.
For all the years the Shuttle has been in use, it is still an experimental craft; the two tragic, catastrophic failures prove that. The Osprey, OTOH, is supposedly a workhorse, a functioning military aircraft to be used as needed in combat operations. My objection is in two parts: one, the U.S. has a proven capacity to design and build aircraft that work properly, as demonstrated by their use in a number of theaters; two, the damned thing costs too much to build and is impossible to maintain in actual operation. One doesn’t have to be an expert on war or military aircraft to see that our military deserves better… and so do our taxpayers.
I remember the early years of the C5, the giant cargo aircraft. Most of what I remember is having to taxi around them at Rhein-Main because they were broken down awaiting parts.
the environment is hostile and eating proven aircraft with many fewer parts. The sand gets into everything and is definitely not going to be good for that tilting mechanism.
I just don’t see a reasonable cost benefit ratio for the airframe.
Imagine if the goal was to wreck the US military….
But no, that would mean the administration could be almost competent.
This thing is pork barrel spending, pure and simple. The contractor spread the manufacture of the thing around to suck in the maximum number of Congressclowns for support.