Senate Bill Shorts Gear for Troops

[solypsist]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060420/...ending_add_ons

"A Senate measure to fund the war in Iraq would chop money for troops' night vision equipment and new battle vehicles but add $230 million for a tilt-rotor aircraft that has already cost $18 billion and is still facing safety questions. The Osprey, manufactured by Bell Helicopter, a subsidiary of Textron Inc., has been in development since the 1980s and has cost the government $18 billion so far. It has suffered numerous setbacks over the years, including two crashes in 2000 that killed 23 people."

looks like once again the corporate military-industrial lobbyists have a victory over common sense use of tax dollars.

[Dooz]

looks like once again the corporate military-industrial lobbyists have a victory over common sense use of tax dollars.

Well of course. This is afterall, a corporate-run country.

[rory_20_uk]

Call it the Dodo damn it. At least that way they might eventually get the idea that it should be extinct!

Genius to the company building it - effectively getting senators to buy votes in their home states.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

But, but...we need night vision!

[Ronin]

But, but...we need night vision!

soldiers can get shot at just as well without nightvision...

[KafirChobee]

There is a new book out, was lauded on the "Jon Stewart" show, that now calls the MIC - the "Military Industrial Congressional Complex" because it is as much Congress that drives some of these programs as it is the military.
An example the author gave for the compliance between them (congress and the pentagon) was on the B-1 bomber, a total loser. The B-1 was touted as the saviour of the Airforce, by the USAF; it was the first program Carter trashed, first one Reagan re-instated, first one Clinton dragged his feet on, and the first one Bush pushed for a full steam ahead build (or re-design, or make safe, etc). The plane itself is "pretty", but it has been grounded more than it has been allowed to actually fly. Then why are we still dealing with this thing that can't even compare to the B-52? Well, seems that parts for the B-1 are produced in nearly every State in the Union, and something like +70% of the House districts. So, it is a legitimized pork project that makes everyone happy, and all the congressmen (women) can point out that they are bringing jobs to their districts (States).

As for the Osprey, it made sense in the 80's - and the Brits have one (that works), but when, where, why, or how we would ever use such a weapon is beyond me. To support ground troops it would have to be stationary (not a good idea) and one report said a BB gun (I'm sure they exaggerated) could damage it. Regardless, since there don't seem to be any Harry Trumans' running around congress trying to assure compliance between our military's actual needs and the design/development/manufacture of its weaponry it maybe time to establish a citizens board - like a "Grand Jury" (Harry, btw, put 100's of thousands of miles on his car in WWII investigating the manufacures of weapons. He found a plane thats' wings were 2 feet to short - yet, the manufacturer and military waere going to do it anyway ... 'til Harry stepped in and promised to expose them if they didn't fix it. He also found the Navy was buying torpedoes that didn't explode, and a number of other things).

The way things are done today, and have been since we became a war nation in 1947 are entrenched now in the design / contractual / and maunfacturing processes. It is way to late to change anything about it. Remember the "Sgt. York" artillary piece - they had 50 of them planned for manufacture, even though it didn't work. Until the military came to their senses, because of an investigative report.

[Tribesman]

As for the Osprey, it made sense in the 80's - and the Brits have one (that works), but when, where, why, or how we would ever use such a weapon is beyond me.
The brits have a tilt wing multi role transport aircraft ?
When , where and why would be when you would use a transport/assault helicopter but want to do it faster and quieter .

[Divinus Arma]

Instead of bashing the program, why don't you ask a MARINE, since this is for us.

So, what is more dangerous to troops: Not as many pairs of new NVGs, or an aging fleets of Sea Knights and Super Stallions from the Vietnam War?

The Osprey, having faced very real challenges with the technology, is the best replacement for the Corps' fleet of rotary wing aircraft. It flys faster, farther, and carries more than any VTOL Rotor type aircraft available today. It will allow us to project our forces deep into the territory of enemies via seabasing without the need for refueling or regional alliances. The capabilities of your Marine Corps will be greatly magnified, and lives will be saved as a consequence.

Soly, your initial post was ignorant of the facts at hand. You are comparing apples to oranges. The fact is that we need the OJ right now, and we only have enough cash for one fruit.

[BigTex]

There is a new book out, was lauded on the "Jon Stewart" show, that now calls the MIC - the "Military Industrial Congressional Complex" because it is as much Congress that drives some of these programs as it is the military.
An example the author gave for the compliance between them (congress and the pentagon) was on the B-1 bomber, a total loser. The B-1 was touted as the saviour of the Airforce, by the USAF; it was the first program Carter trashed, first one Reagan re-instated, first one Clinton dragged his feet on, and the first one Bush pushed for a full steam ahead build (or re-design, or make safe, etc). The plane itself is "pretty", but it has been grounded more than it has been allowed to actually fly. Then why are we still dealing with this thing that can't even compare to the B-52? Well, seems that parts for the B-1 are produced in nearly every State in the Union, and something like +70% of the House districts. So, it is a legitimized pork project that makes everyone happy, and all the congressmen (women) can point out that they are bringing jobs to their districts (States).

As for the Osprey, it made sense in the 80's - and the Brits have one (that works), but when, where, why, or how we would ever use such a weapon is beyond me. To support ground troops it would have to be stationary (not a good idea) and one report said a BB gun (I'm sure they exaggerated) could damage it. Regardless, since there don't seem to be any Harry Trumans' running around congress trying to assure compliance between our military's actual needs and the design/development/manufacture of its weaponry it maybe time to establish a citizens board - like a "Grand Jury" (Harry, btw, put 100's of thousands of miles on his car in WWII investigating the manufacures of weapons. He found a plane thats' wings were 2 feet to short - yet, the manufacturer and military waere going to do it anyway ... 'til Harry stepped in and promised to expose them if they didn't fix it. He also found the Navy was buying torpedoes that didn't explode, and a number of other things).

The way things are done today, and have been since we became a war nation in 1947 are entrenched now in the design / contractual / and maunfacturing processes. It is way to late to change anything about it. Remember the "Sgt. York" artillary piece - they had 50 of them planned for manufacture, even though it didn't work. Until the military came to their senses, because of an investigative report.

The B-1 bomber is insane in its costs 2.4 billion dollars per plane. One B-1 costs more then a nimitz class airfract carrier. The B-52 can carry more, longer and fly higher then most aa, sure it isnt stealth, but thats were the F-22, F-117, JSF come in. There's major problems with how the US military is spending money on. There's more problems with how the congress is taking money away also. Last year the congress nearly scrapped the crusader projoect, calling the mobile artilary old and unusable in war nowadays. I believe the germans and their Panther artilery would disagree, but hey gotta love congressmen, they know everything. As for establishing a citizens board, we have that its called congress, and their part of the problem. I think we should get rid of congress completely from the militar and let the military build what it needs with the funds congress gives. Without all the budget control they have already.

As for the Osprey, it doesnt work well it unreliable, why in the world didn't they just invest in building another better helicopter to replace the other helicopter. It would have cost less and been out already. Bush nor Cheney want it and yet congress funds it. Either congress over reacts to a problem or they don't react to a problem at all when will we get a congress that actually solves problems they didn't create?

[Divinus Arma]

The osprey, fully loaded, has double the range of the vietnam era Sea Knight. The combat range of the Sea Knight, fully loaded, is 50-60 nautical miles.

My only argument is that we need to replace our aging fleet. I think that osprey can do the job fine because of its range, lift limits, and ability to fly itself from the U.S. to the combat theatre (self deployment). Yes, it has had problems, but it is well on its way.

I understand the author's point of view on failing to arm these flying buses, but he fails to acknowledge that every unarmed bird is supported by various rotory wing and fixed wing aircraft, each with more than enough firepower to soften up a landing site prior to the Osprey mkaing its landing.

[Husar]

Hmm, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/h-53.htm
says about the CH-53:

Seats for 55 passengers or litters for 24 patients

and

Designed to carry 32,000 pounds of cargo at cruise speed to a range of no less than 50 nautical miles
At destination, the helicopter can discharge its cargo, equipment, or troops and return no less than 50 nautical miles—arriving with at least 20 minutes of fuel in reserve.

about the V-22 Osprey http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/v-22.htm
says:

200nm Pre-Assault Raid with 18 troops
200nm Land Assault with 24 troops
50 nm (x2) Amphibious Assault

So it looks like the Osprey can carry less over roughly the same distance at a higher speed.
The argument about it´s vulnerability is nonsense because a helicopter is also pretty vulnerable, you just gotta know where to hit it.
It also appears to me that the military usually purchases something, makes a midlife-update and then gets something new, so if the CH-53 is old, it needs replacement. If there is no other option than the Osprey, the replacement should be the Osprey, if it already cost 18.000.000.000$, I also aouldn´t just throw that money away and end the project, like they did with the Comanche, in that case, the money is completely lost, if you go on, you might at least get anything for the money...

Concerning the B-52 and B-1 comparison, looky here my sparetime generals, the B1-carries more than the B-52 and travels way faster...



And comparing the B-1 to the F-22, F-117, JSF has got to be a joke, right?
FAS also mentions a price of "$200-plus million per aircraft" which says plus, but isn´t really close to 2 billion.

Edit: I just saw that the cost for the B-2 says "Approximately $2.1 billion".

[DemonArchangel]

[WAR NERD]

Look, the V-22 is replacing the CH-53D, not the heavy lift CH-53E (with its third engine)

It would do well replacing the CH-46 Sea Knight, which can carry 25 troops a maximum of 184 miles and at a maximum of 165 mph.

The V-22 can carry the the same amount of troops around 400 miles on a combat load at around 250 mph. The V-22 can make trips twice as frequently as the CH-46.

Even though the CH-53D carries more than the V-22, you can easily scrap them for the CH-53E, which takes up around the same amount of space and has the same dynamics, but carries a much larger load. It's easier on logistics to have just the V-22 and CH-53E instead of the CH-46, CH-53D and CH-53E, not to mention the fact that the V-22 is simply better in every aspect than the CH-46. So let the American govt. do its job and spend the money on the Osprey. It's uninformed people (like certain members of the .org) that get useful projects cancelled because development costs too much in the short term.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...rey/specs.html

And as for you Big Tex, the B-52 might be cheap, and it might just carry a bigger payload than the B-1B, but it shows up like a christmas tree light on radar. Even though you could buy 5-6 B-52s for one B-1 or 20 for one B-2, they're all going to get shot down, taking their expensive to train crews with it, and causing PR issues with the home front, not to mention that fact that experienced crews can't just be sacrificed like that.

[/WAR NERD]

[Tribesman]

Look, the V-22 is replacing the CH-53D, not the heavy lift CH-53E (with its third engine)

What about it replacing the 53J then demon ?

not to mention the fact that the V-22 is simply better in every aspect than the CH-46.
Apart from the aspect of cost , current availability , a few basic problems with avionics and safety . Yes it is better than a helicopter designer 50 years ago .

So let the American govt. do its job and spend the money on the Osprey.
Errr .....if it was doing its job then the funding wouldn't be tagged onto this particular spending bill would it . That is the core issue in case you missed it .

It's uninformed people (like certain members of the .org) that get useful projects cancelled because development costs too much in the short term.

You mean people like Cheney ?....Vice President Cheney, as secretary of defense in the first Bush administration, tried to kill the V-22, to no avail.

Useful projects ? Short term ?
You do know how long the US has been working on tilt-wing aircraft , and you do know how much this current short-term project has gone on for and how much it has cost ? Or maybe you don't .

edit to addOr so the liberals would have you believe. It seems these days that even preparing for the eventuality of a real war is taboo.
Ummmmmm....have you actually read this thread GC ?

[DemonArchangel]

Tribesman:

I know exactly what the Osprey costs, has cost and I have a pretty good idea about how much it costs. I think that it's worth the money given the capabilities of the Osprey.

And the CH-53J doesn't exist, you're thinking about the MH-53J Pave Low, which is a night infiltrator that has less range than the Osprey, which reduces its capabilities in terms of Special Forces insertion.

It's ok if we purchase less nightvision for troops, because we currently don't need as many nightvision units on the ground due to reduced troop numbers. What the military does need is something that has the range to insert troops deep into enemy territory, do it quickly and then stow it aboard an LHD for use. The Osprey can do all that, so it will be purchased, no matter someone like you says.

Edited for language by Ser Clegane