($100 Million Dollar) Aircraft Crash Continues To Raise Issues About This POS

[unhappycamper]

unhappycamper note: Since the ‘Pentagon’ (DoD? Gannett?) has ‘requested’ that I only post one paragraph from articles on Army Times, and Airforce Times, To keep in that same (new) tradition, I will also do the same for for articles on Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, stripes.com and military.com.
To read the article in the military's own words, you will need to click the link.

Read all about Fair Use here. It sure is beginning to smell like fascism.

unhappycamper summary of this article: Be sure to read the comments at the end of the linked thread.

My favorite one:

Yeah, it was pilot error, alright. The pilot made the error of flying the piece of crap.







CV-22 Crash Caused by Pilot Error, Engine “Power Loss” May Have Contributed

While the service’s accident investigation board couldn’t determine the cause of the crash “by the standard of ‘clear and convincing evidence,’ in part because the flight incident recorder, the Vibration Structural Life and Engine Diagnostics control unit, and the right engine were destroyed,” it did find that 10 factors likely contributed to the fatal accident.

[hobbit709]

1. Blame the pilot-he's dead and can't defend himself.

That's easier than admitting he was flying a dangerous, overpriced POS.

[old mark]

2. Shit! The Osprey! I thought that thing had been abandoned years ago...

How long has it been in "development" now - 25 years? Tom Clancey loves the thing - many of his fictional heroic war novels feature the Osprey-but you are right - anyone who actually flies in one deserves either a medal for heroism or a tour with a psychiatrist...

The Osprey is like a mirror image of the B-52 - it has never lived up to its intended purpose and is destined to be obsolete before it ever does.

All is does is cost a ton of money and kill those who travel in it.



mark

[PhillySane]

3. I think you mean the B-1

Reagan ordered a hundred of these to be built, at tremendous cost, and they've never been used. In fact, the B-52, first built in the 1950's is still being used today.

[NutmegYankee]

4. Didn't we use the B-1 in Afghanistan?

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/21/cold-wars-b-1-bomber-emerges-as-effective-weapon-in-afghanistan/

[PhillySane]

6. Sorry, yes

It has been used in a limited role. It was also used in Kosovo. But nothing compared to the B-52 or the B-2 stealth. The b-1 never lived up to its primary role, since it was meant as a long distance bomber and a cold-war threat to the USSR. It was plagued with problems and many crashes of the expensive aircraft. But, you know, if you spend billions on these things you have to use them a little in order to keep justifying the money.

[NutmegYankee]

7. I have heard the maintenance is hell.

And that is a big problem with our weapons systems - we pay a contractor to design and build the thing and they don't focus enough on the largest cost of all - maintenance.

[old mark]

12. That's my point - the Osprey is the reverse - cost tons, and doesn't work well...

The B-52 was - is - one of the best bargains we ever got in aviation hardware.


mark

[formercia]

8. It's been around longer than that

I remember seeing photographs of the early prototypes in 1981.

This project has been pushed by the Black-op boys for over a generation. Too bad it doesn't fly well on one rotor.

[kenny blankenship]

9. Bad weapons projects never die, they just waste away

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

they keep getting the money to build them, right?
the ultimate pork contract...self destructing products.

[nc4bo]

10. Just saw one of these lumbering across our sky a couple days ago

and wondered if he'd make it to the base in one piece or in several. $100 Million, eh?

Oh gawd.

[Ian David]

11. I KNEW this was going to be about the Osprey before I clicked on the link. n/t