Senate Bill Shorts Gear for Troops

[Tribesman]

But DA, you just ruined a perfect slanted presentation by the AP with your lousy facts and reality!

Yeah , facts like ....Read up. Here. Good article comparing to potential replacements for the aging CH-53.
an article comparing the potential replacement of the CH-46 ????? so thats not much of a real factual comparrisson is it , and it does seem to recomend that the CH-53 is chosen as the replacement rather than the Osprey .
But hey don't let that stop facts and reality .

but none of his arguments fit Your or Soly's flacid complaints.
??????
Soly complains about cost and efficiency , so does the article you post .
Spetulhu complains about load and range , so does the article you post .

[Divinus Arma]

But DA, you just ruined a perfect slanted presentation by the AP with your lousy facts and reality!

Yeah , facts like ....Read up. Here. Good article comparing to potential replacements for the aging CH-53.
an article comparing the potential replacement of the CH-46 ????? so thats not much of a real factual comparrisson is it , and it does seem to recomend that the CH-53 is chosen as the replacement rather than the Osprey .
But hey don't let that stop facts and reality .

but none of his arguments fit Your or Soly's flacid complaints.
??????
Soly complains about cost and efficiency , so does the article you post .
Spetulhu complains about load and range , so does the article you post .

This is just typical Tribesman anger just for the sake of anger. Obviously I made a typo. I guess that makes all of my arguments invalid, huh? God forbid.

As for the rest of your nonsense, Soly compares the MV 22 to ground equipment. They cannot be compared. We need to replace our medium lift capability. I don't care if it's the MV 22 or something else. Spelthu's point s don't even fit into Marine Capabilities; he isn't even making a valid analysis of the topic! Sure, it's got a lot of range when empty, but that won't help the Marines that want to reach the combat zone. A Special Ops squad will get better range, of course. This doesn't even belong in the argument. It it far more capable than our existing aging fleet. The full combat load is nearly double that of our current capability. Further, Spec ops has little to do with sea basing and amphibious manuever warfare. It's merely an extra capability added to the commander's total range, rather than the core of the whole.

Tribesman, you sure love to bait with nonsensical distortions of facts. Why are you so angry?

[rory_20_uk]

OK... The concept is over 20 YEARS OLD!

It still doesn't work! It's been built for the time that is the life expectancy for some kit! It's a white elephant, a paper tiger, a cathedral in the desert!

I could draw a picture of something and say it's better than your existing fleet, faster further etc etc, and in 20 years it'd not emerge either. The commanders havn't got it, there is no timescale to get it. And all the time the chances of getting something else are not there as this farce is sucking up the money.

There comes a time to GIVE UP! Something else could have been designed for this cash - a hovercraft, a helicopter or a plane. Improve on one of these concepts. $18 BILLION will get you a long way.

[Tribesman]

This is just typical Tribesman anger just for the sake of anger. Obviously I made a typo.
And obviously Rabbit didn't read your link ....you just ruined a perfect slanted presentation by the AP with your lousy facts and reality!


Oh so sorry , it was just a typo then . So many years ago they thought that a system that was having problems , was unable to do the job as well and was much more expensive was the worse choice of the two options for replacement . Now today they think that a system that is having problems , is unable to do the job and is more expensive is what exactly ?

Talking of nonsense Div ....The full combat load is nearly double that of our current capability....is that another typo ? it must by as the load is half of the current one
Soly compares the MV 22 to ground equipment. They cannot be compared. We need to replace our medium lift capability.
An interesting comparison don't you think , since there is little point in having the Osprey to put people on the ground if you are dening the people on the ground the equipment they need , the best example from that article is blocking the funding for the ground vehicles that are designed to be used with the Osprey . How exactly does that increase capability ?

Or more to the topic , this bill is for funding the war , so exactly when where and how are ospreys being used in Iraq ?
edit to add..OK... The concept is over 20 YEARS OLD!
...the current project is that old , the concept is much much older , it has been tried many times by many countries and militarily at least it has always ben an expensive failure .

edit to also add , Soly mentions the accidents , one cause of this has been pilot error , there are problems with rotor vortex effects . Basically a rapid descent means that the engines do not provide any lift at all .
Since in a hostile environment , like a war , a rapid descent is pretty important when it involves getting troops/equipment safely on the ground .
If the V-22 cannot do this then how does it increase capability at all