Loose Bolts Ground V-22 Ospreys; Four Aircraft in Iraq Will NeedFixes

On Mar 26, 2:58*pm, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
Matt Wiser wrote:
As long as it takes. The USMC has a habit of getting its way on procurement,
so either get on board or get out of the way. Not to mention that it's been
a number of years since the last crash (the one that had 19 Marines killed),
and the aircraft has been tested, evaled, and tested again. If you've got an
alternative aircraft to replace the H-46, let's hear it. If not, follow the
above advice.

[ SNIP ]

New CH-46's? I'm not being entirely facetious here...other folks
suggested this back in the '90's, although the idea would have been to
manufacture an improved CH-46.

One of our (any country, not just the US) biggest defense procurement
problems is whenever a weapons system or vehicle or
radio...whatever...starts getting old, we almost always feel the need to
design and build a *new* thing. I'll buy that concept for electronics,
but it's not obvious to me that if a truck fleet or a buy of helicopters
or rifles gets worn out, that we need to spend 10 or 20 years designing
entirely new ones.

AHS

I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek,
AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP
produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line
would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious
consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when
the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper
recently to call for the program's termination, but then again,
they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years....

On Mar 26, 8:25*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Mar 26, 2:58*pm, Arved Sandstrom wrote:



Matt Wiser wrote:
As long as it takes. The USMC has a habit of getting its way on procurement,
so either get on board or get out of the way. Not to mention that it's been
a number of years since the last crash (the one that had 19 Marines killed),
and the aircraft has been tested, evaled, and tested again. If you've got an
alternative aircraft to replace the H-46, let's hear it. If not, follow the
above advice.

[ SNIP ]

New CH-46's? I'm not being entirely facetious here...other folks
suggested this back in the '90's, although the idea would have been to
manufacture an improved CH-46.

One of our (any country, not just the US) biggest defense procurement
problems is whenever a weapons system or vehicle or
radio...whatever...starts getting old, we almost always feel the need to
design and build a *new* thing. I'll buy that concept for electronics,
but it's not obvious to me that if a truck fleet or a buy of helicopters
or rifles gets worn out, that we need to spend 10 or 20 years designing
entirely new ones.

AHS

I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek,
AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP
produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line
would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious
consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when
the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper
recently to call for the program's termination, but then again,
they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years....

You realize stopping a "bad" but politically "hot" program can be pro-
military, don't you? I would think that Sikorsky could be working up a
"new" H-46 right now and build it in the abandoned plant they had to
close.

On Mar 27, 2:06*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:
On Mar 26, 8:25*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:





On Mar 26, 2:58*pm, Arved Sandstrom wrote:

Matt Wiser wrote:
As long as it takes. The USMC has a habit of getting its way on procurement,
so either get on board or get out of the way. Not to mention that it's been
a number of years since the last crash (the one that had 19 Marines killed),
and the aircraft has been tested, evaled, and tested again. If you've got an
alternative aircraft to replace the H-46, let's hear it. If not, follow the
above advice.

[ SNIP ]

New CH-46's? I'm not being entirely facetious here...other folks
suggested this back in the '90's, although the idea would have been to
manufacture an improved CH-46.

One of our (any country, not just the US) biggest defense procurement
problems is whenever a weapons system or vehicle or
radio...whatever...starts getting old, we almost always feel the need to
design and build a *new* thing. I'll buy that concept for electronics,
but it's not obvious to me that if a truck fleet or a buy of helicopters
or rifles gets worn out, that we need to spend 10 or 20 years designing
entirely new ones.

AHS

I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek,
AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP
produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line
would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious
consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when
the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper
recently to call for the program's termination, but then again,
they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years....

You realize stopping a "bad" but politically "hot" program can be pro-
military, don't you? I would think that Sikorsky could be working up a
"new" H-46 right now and build it in the abandoned plant they had to
close.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The New York Twits follow the Gary Hart school on defense. They did so
in the '80s and continue to do so today.

Sikorsky didn't build the H-46: Boeing-Vertol did.

On Mar 27, 7:57*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Mar 27, 2:06*am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:



On Mar 26, 8:25*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:

On Mar 26, 2:58*pm, Arved Sandstrom wrote:

Matt Wiser wrote:
As long as it takes. The USMC has a habit of getting its way on procurement,
so either get on board or get out of the way. Not to mention that it's been
a number of years since the last crash (the one that had 19 Marines killed),
and the aircraft has been tested, evaled, and tested again. If you've got an
alternative aircraft to replace the H-46, let's hear it. If not, follow the
above advice.

[ SNIP ]

New CH-46's? I'm not being entirely facetious here...other folks
suggested this back in the '90's, although the idea would have been to
manufacture an improved CH-46.

One of our (any country, not just the US) biggest defense procurement
problems is whenever a weapons system or vehicle or
radio...whatever...starts getting old, we almost always feel the need to
design and build a *new* thing. I'll buy that concept for electronics,
but it's not obvious to me that if a truck fleet or a buy of helicopters
or rifles gets worn out, that we need to spend 10 or 20 years designing
entirely new ones.

AHS

I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek,
AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP
produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line
would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious
consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when
the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper
recently to call for the program's termination, but then again,
they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years....

You realize stopping a "bad" but politically "hot" program can be pro-
military, don't you? I would think that Sikorsky could be working up a
"new" H-46 right now and build it in the abandoned plant they had to
close.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The New York Twits follow the Gary Hart school on defense. They did so
in the '80s and continue to do so today.

Sikorsky didn't build the H-46: Boeing-Vertol did.

Did I say they did? I said "new" H-46. It's called competition

Matt Wiser wrote:
On Mar 26, 2:58 pm, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
Matt Wiser wrote:
As long as it takes. The USMC has a habit of getting its way on procurement,
so either get on board or get out of the way. Not to mention that it's been
a number of years since the last crash (the one that had 19 Marines killed),
and the aircraft has been tested, evaled, and tested again. If you've got an
alternative aircraft to replace the H-46, let's hear it. If not, follow the
above advice.
[ SNIP ]

New CH-46's? I'm not being entirely facetious here...other folks
suggested this back in the '90's, although the idea would have been to
manufacture an improved CH-46.

One of our (any country, not just the US) biggest defense procurement
problems is whenever a weapons system or vehicle or
radio...whatever...starts getting old, we almost always feel the need to
design and build a *new* thing. I'll buy that concept for electronics,
but it's not obvious to me that if a truck fleet or a buy of helicopters
or rifles gets worn out, that we need to spend 10 or 20 years designing
entirely new ones.

AHS

I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek,
AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP
produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line
would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious
consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when
the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper
recently to call for the program's termination, but then again,
they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years....

David F. Bond, "CH-46E Replacement May be CH-46X:
Marines Believe UH-60 is Too Small," Aviation Week and Space
Technology Magazine, February 19, 1990

AHS

Well, given that the last new-build H-46 came off the Boeing-Vertol line in
1971...how long would it have taken to restart production, with production
tools likely destroyed?
"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message
news:zc6zl.19952$PH1.12528@edtnps82...
Matt Wiser wrote:
On Mar 26, 2:58 pm, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
Matt Wiser wrote:
As long as it takes. The USMC has a habit of getting its way on
procurement,
so either get on board or get out of the way. Not to mention that it's
been
a number of years since the last crash (the one that had 19 Marines
killed),
and the aircraft has been tested, evaled, and tested again. If you've
got an
alternative aircraft to replace the H-46, let's hear it. If not,
follow the
above advice.
[ SNIP ]

New CH-46's? I'm not being entirely facetious here...other folks
suggested this back in the '90's, although the idea would have been to
manufacture an improved CH-46.

One of our (any country, not just the US) biggest defense procurement
problems is whenever a weapons system or vehicle or
radio...whatever...starts getting old, we almost always feel the need
to
design and build a *new* thing. I'll buy that concept for electronics,
but it's not obvious to me that if a truck fleet or a buy of
helicopters
or rifles gets worn out, that we need to spend 10 or 20 years designing
entirely new ones.

AHS

I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek,
AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP
produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line
would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious
consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when
the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper
recently to call for the program's termination, but then again,
they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years....

David F. Bond, "CH-46E Replacement May be CH-46X:
Marines Believe UH-60 is Too Small," Aviation Week and Space
Technology Magazine, February 19, 1990

AHS

Matt Wiser wrote:
Well, given that the last new-build H-46 came off the Boeing-Vertol line in
1971...how long would it have taken to restart production, with production
tools likely destroyed?

"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message
news:zc6zl.19952$PH1.12528@edtnps82...
Matt Wiser wrote:
[ SNIP ]

I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek,
AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP
produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line
would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious
consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when
the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper
recently to call for the program's termination, but then again,
they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years....

David F. Bond, "CH-46E Replacement May be CH-46X:
Marines Believe UH-60 is Too Small," Aviation Week and Space
Technology Magazine, February 19, 1990

AHS

I honestly don't know. Still, if it took up to a couple of years that
seems to be quite acceptable.

AHS

On Mar 28, 5:32*am, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
Matt Wiser wrote:
Well, given that the last new-build H-46 came off the Boeing-Vertol line in
1971...how long would it have taken to restart production, with production
tools likely destroyed?
"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message
news:zc6zl.19952$PH1.12528@edtnps82...
Matt Wiser wrote:

[ SNIP ]

I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek,
AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP
produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line
would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious
consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when
the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper
recently to call for the program's termination, but then again,
they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years....
David F. Bond, "CH-46E Replacement May be CH-46X:
Marines Believe UH-60 is Too Small," Aviation Week and Space
Technology Magazine, February 19, 1990

AHS

I honestly don't know. Still, if it took up to a couple of years that
seems to be quite acceptable.

AHS

If the H-46 had been in low-rate production since '71, maybe. But
restarting new airframes after all that time? I think not.

Matt Wiser wrote:
On Mar 28, 5:32 am, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
Matt Wiser wrote:
Well, given that the last new-build H-46 came off the Boeing-Vertol line in
1971...how long would it have taken to restart production, with production
tools likely destroyed?
"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message
news:zc6zl.19952$PH1.12528@edtnps82...
Matt Wiser wrote:
[ SNIP ]

I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek,
AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP
produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line
would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious
consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet when
the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper
recently to call for the program's termination, but then again,
they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years....
David F. Bond, "CH-46E Replacement May be CH-46X:
Marines Believe UH-60 is Too Small," Aviation Week and Space
Technology Magazine, February 19, 1990
AHS
I honestly don't know. Still, if it took up to a couple of years that
seems to be quite acceptable.

AHS

If the H-46 had been in low-rate production since '71, maybe. But
restarting new airframes after all that time? I think not.


One problem to restarting an assembly line of such an old system is
there would have to be newer technologies included. This requires a
bunch of engineering. Add to that the government acquisition quagmire of
funding and contracts and I think you'd be hard pressed to get the line
started and the first prototypes tested in two years. I have no idea how
long it would take to produce enough airframes to restock the fleet
along with the attendant supply chain. My guess would be another couple
of years.

The way things are going I'd wager a new design from a competitor
would take at least that long.

If osprey is such a dud it needs to be terminated someone had better
get the ball rolling for its replacement. In the mean time osprey will
have to do the job since H-46 is reaching the end of its operational
life. Keeping H-46 and dropping osprey right now means trying to keep
H-46 on life support, maybe not now, but soon.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

And nobody's getting the ball rolling on a V-22 replacement. Which means,
like it or not, it's the V-22 by default. The anti-Osprey crowd keeps
shreiking "No V-22s", without any suggestion of a OTS or other replacement;
being against the V-22 has taken on religious overtones in some circles.
(the New York Twits' editorial board being the leader of the pack) H-46s are
going to the desert parking lot in Arizona as fast as new Ospreys come off
the line and crews get transitioned, so the time to get a new helo to
replace the Osprey (if you can find one) is either now, or never.
"Dan" wrote in message
...
Matt Wiser wrote:
On Mar 28, 5:32 am, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
Matt Wiser wrote:
Well, given that the last new-build H-46 came off the Boeing-Vertol
line in
1971...how long would it have taken to restart production, with
production
tools likely destroyed?
"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in message
news:zc6zl.19952$PH1.12528@edtnps82...
Matt Wiser wrote:
[ SNIP ]

I don't recall any of the aviation magazines reporting that (AvWeek,
AFM, WAPJ, etc.). The last H-46s were built new in 1971. CILOP
produced the CH-46 Echo version in the 1970s. The production line
would be too dormant to restart in any event. The only other serious
consideration was the Sikorsky H-92, and it hadn't even flown yet
when
the V-22 was revived. The New York Twits is the only major newspaper
recently to call for the program's termination, but then again,
they've been so anti-military since the Reagan years....
David F. Bond, "CH-46E Replacement May be CH-46X:
Marines Believe UH-60 is Too Small," Aviation Week and Space
Technology Magazine, February 19, 1990
AHS
I honestly don't know. Still, if it took up to a couple of years that
seems to be quite acceptable.

AHS

If the H-46 had been in low-rate production since '71, maybe. But
restarting new airframes after all that time? I think not.


One problem to restarting an assembly line of such an old system is
there would have to be newer technologies included. This requires a
bunch of engineering. Add to that the government acquisition quagmire of
funding and contracts and I think you'd be hard pressed to get the line
started and the first prototypes tested in two years. I have no idea how
long it would take to produce enough airframes to restock the fleet
along with the attendant supply chain. My guess would be another couple
of years.

The way things are going I'd wager a new design from a competitor
would take at least that long.

If osprey is such a dud it needs to be terminated someone had better
get the ball rolling for its replacement. In the mean time osprey will
have to do the job since H-46 is reaching the end of its operational
life. Keeping H-46 and dropping osprey right now means trying to keep
H-46 on life support, maybe not now, but soon.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired