Nothing but the best for the Brave British troops!

[LargoWinch]

Re: Nothing but the best for the Brave British troops!

Hell, this is a normal outcome everywhere from the "Peace Dividend" isn't it?

We Canadians are experts at keeping obsolete military equipment working. A small example from earlier this decade...

Posters poke fun at Canada's aging Sea King helicopters

Last Updated: Thursday, November 7, 2002 | 12:32 AM ET


Canada's aging fleet of Sea King helicopters have become the butt of a joke by anonymous pranksters.

The Sea Kings are 40 years old and keeping them in the air requires 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flying time. Now the helicopters are also being featured on bogus recruiting posters around the armed forces. One poster shows a crashed Sea King on its side and a caption that reads: 'It's more than a career, it's an adventure.'...

Shortly after moving to the Arabian Gulf some years ago, I was invited to a Canadian expat social function hosted by our Ambassador on board one the Canadian Forces frigates serving with the US Navy led task force. Each frigate has a Sea King helicopter on it. I asked our guide if there were any pilots in the Armed Forces older than the helicopters they were flying...nope. Being a private sector entreprenuer, and thus always on the lookout for opportunties, I then suggested to the commanding officer that we raise some money for our chronically underfunded military by raffling off the ancient helicopter as a "gangplank prize" for the assembled guests. In an astute alternative move to reduce taxpayer costs they cut me off from the bar...

40-year old Sea Kings in action...

All I wish for Canada is to go the way of Costa Rica.

[Ghent12]

Re: Nothing but the best for the Brave British troops!

Not yet in Afghanistan, but scheduled to be. They were in Iraq, and like most things there, did not perform as well as anticipated by their supporters but better than anticipated by their detractors. Like every piece of US military procurement these days (except submarines) they are subject to cost creep and lots of initial problems.

However, the specific point you addressed earlier is a rather oversold one. They've been tested or in operation for almost two decades now, and have had a typical number of incidents associated with such an optempo.

[rj1]

Re: Nothing but the best for the Brave British troops!

http://www.informationdissemination....rs-osprey.html

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-692T

As of January 2009, the 12 MV-22s in Iraq successfully completed all missions assigned in a low-threat theater of operations--using their enhanced speed and range to deliver personnel and internal cargo faster and farther than the legacy helicopters being replaced. However, challenges to operational effectiveness were noted that raise questions about whether the MV-22 is best suited to accomplish the full repertoire of missions of the helicopters it is intended to replace. Additionally, suitability challenges, such as unreliable component parts and supply chain weaknesses, led to low aircraft availability rates. Additional challenges have been identified with the MV-22's ability to operate in high-threat environments, carry the required number of combat troops and transport external cargo, operate from Navy ships, and conduct missions in more extreme environments throughout the world. While efforts are underway to address these challenges, it is uncertain how successful they will be as some of them arise from the inherent design of the V-22. The V-22's original program cost estimates have changed significantly. From 1986 through 2007, the program's Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation cost increased over 200 percent--from $4.2 to 12.7 billion--while the cost of procurement increased 24 percent from $34.4 to $42.6 billion. This increase coincided with significant reductions in the number of aircraft being procured--from nearly 1,000 to less than 500--resulting in a 148 percent increase in cost for each V-22. Operations and support costs are expected to rise. An indication is the current cost per flying hour, which is over $11,000--more than double the target estimate for the MV-22. After more than 20 years in development, the MV-22 experience in Iraq demonstrated that the Osprey can complete missions assigned in low-threat environments. Its speed and range were enhancements. However, challenges may limit its ability to accomplish the full repertoire of missions of the legacy helicopters it is replacing. If so, those tasks will need to be fulfilled by some other alternative. Additionally, the suitability challenges that lower aircraft availability and affect operations and support costs need to be addressed. The V-22 program has already received or requested over $29 billion in development and procurement funds. The estimated funding required to complete development and procure additional V-22s is almost $25 billion (then-year dollars). In addition, the program continues to face a future of high operations and support cost funding needs, currently estimated at $75.4 billion for the life cycle of the program. Before committing to the full costs of completing production and supporting the V-22, the uses, cost, and performance of the V-22 need to be clarified and alternatives should be re-considered.

I am going to have to read the whole report before I comment about it, but my first impression is this looks like a real kick in the nuts to the Marines. I am interested in what are described as inherent design flaws. I've been wondering for awhile now if in an attempt to build a platform that is both airplane and helicopter, the Marines are willing to accept that the MV-22 has properties of both, but can never meet the requirements of either, and should be treated as something altogether different instead of attempting to pile on major vertical lift roles on the platform.

That theory would suggest a need for a medium-lift capability currently not on the drawing board.

I will say this though. The Wright brothers first flight was in 1903, and by 1923 airplanes were not exactly a beacon of reliability. If one considers the first real flight of a helicopter to be in 1924, the one must remember that by 1974, 50 years later, over 8000 helicopters were shot down in just the Vietnam War. The MV-22 is a complicated system, and I am curious if the GAO puts any sort of historical context into its analysis of conclusions.

The reason I say this is because by 1923, despite reliability issues, airplanes were recognized as an important military capability that military forces were investing in, including in the Navy. At no time since 1974 has any military service considered the helicopter too dangerous, despite its Vietnam record, to field as a necessary capability. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the expectations of the MV-22 could be too high, and the GAO response represents a warning that the Marines should take caution in their expectations for the MV-22 capability while it is still, at least historically, relatively young in its development as a reliable military capability.

[Ghent12]

Re: Nothing but the best for the Brave British troops!

You read the blogs I read