I'm getting a bit miffed by the spin being generated around the capabilities of the MV-22. War is Boring Blog wrote a piece on it that had my blood pumping yesterday and then we have the fuzzy news of its use in an evacuation in Libya. First check out this bit from WIB....
Contrary to the paper specifications McCain cites, no CH-46 I have ever flown in ever carried 14 troops over a distance of 160 miles. Marines planned for 12 combat-loaded troops, max—and often planned for just eight. Admittedly, the V-22 advertises 24 troops, but planners shoot for no more than 18 combat-loaded Marines.On a sidenote, I really need to nail down the stats on the V-22. I've read that max troop load is actually 12-16...not the 18 that the author states. Additionally the range quoted has me scratching my head. 233 miles? If thats true then Amos' mythical 200 miles off shore is as dead as disco. Even the MV-22 doesn't have the range to get their without refueling.
The V-22 might be limited to 233 miles on a single tank, but surprisingly McCain doesn’t mention that it can also refuel in flight. This effectively gives the Osprey indefinite range, provided tankers are available.
Oh yeah, and it does it all at incredible speed. The CH-46 cruised at 140 knots while the Osprey moves at 240 knots in airplane mode—and maxes out over 300 knots.
And that brings me to the video above.
The number of personnel being evacuated indicates to me that the force package being quoted to the media is not even close to being real. 80 US Marines and 150 embassy personnel? How many MV-22s would you need to be able to haul 230 people out of the desert if sugar turned to shit?
And that has me turning back to the main question.
Why are they trying so hard to spin us on the MV-22? The plane is being bought so is their pressure to cancel the remaining buys? Is the SPMAGTF under pressure to be disbanded (as I've called for)?
Something is going on behind closed doors because the lobbying for the plane is in overdrive.
