Other than the fact it’s based on 1970s air frames. As a demonstration platform fine but to actually get a production version? You would be starting from scratch. Which defeats the whole intention behind the CMV22B program. Osprey has its issues. But CODS isn’t likely to be defeated by this grounding. The USN still has C2R greyhound in service. Aviation groundings like this happen and are normally resolved in time.
Yes, many grounding are resolved eventually but the Osprey has had numerous issues over a considerable length of time. Not sure what legal exposure the US military has if they continue using it and more stuff occurs. Lawyers in the US can since blood better than sharks. As I have posted previously the V-280 must be a more reliable and safer tilt-rotor design.
It’s more a case that when it has had a crash because it is a transport it has a higher body count. It has issues farther because it’s the first of its type. Many have been due to the stresses of trying to operate a high disk load in dust out conditions where said dust will overwhelm the dust filters.
Agree about the inherent dangers of military aircraft but at what point do you say “enough already”?
apnews.com
asia.nikkei.com
What happens to Sweden? IIRC they were part of the Tempest program, are they going to join the Franco-German one instead?
Japan, UK and Italy formally establish a joint body to develop a new advanced fighter jet
The defense ministers of Japan, Britain and Italy have signed an agreement to establish a joint organization to develop a new advanced jet fighter, as the countries push to strengthen their cooperation in the face of growing threats from China, Russia and North Korea.
It is official, Japan, UK and Italy team up for fighter development.
Britain, Japan and Italy sign advanced fighter jet treaty
Agreement aims to put plane in the air by 2035
The agreement must be rectified by each country parliament, and thus one of reason joint development program schedule in 2025. RR as leading turbofan engine producers expected to take lead, however Japan IHI also already come out with prototype of 10KN+ turbofan engine. Well will see if this one not getting bog down with Industrial ego.
Let's see if France and German can resolve their differences and move forward on the competing project.
They're currently assessing their options, not committed to any project. I think they've deferred a decision until the 2030s as to what they're doing.
We are nowhere near that point. V22 in all variants has had 16 hull losses since 91. Only 4 took lives. Farther a number were caused by human error. pilots who were either not trained for aspects of the Osprey’s unique flight profile (leading to changes in training ) or whom were making mistake.
GCAP is really Sweden’s only option if they want to continue being involved in manufacturing fast jets. The workshare issues with France and Germany plus Spain, a bridge too far IMHO. Like many other allies and NATO members, perhaps just evaluating the three major programs (four if you include the USN NGAD) and selecting one could be the best option.
As far as the Franco-German aircraft goes, I am suprised that France is willing to work with Germany given german stances on exports. France willl never allow another country to tell them who they can sell to. The way Germany is vetoing typhoon exports, should not sit well with the French.
I agree, Germany is a complete downer if export sales is a goal and these programs absolutely need export sales. If Dassault wasn't such a PITA to deal with France could have been in GCAP and Germany could buy whatever assuming they want to defend themselves and their neighbours.
Agree
The French requirement for a naval variant is a huge problem for FCAS which is part of why the Germany/France issue is a problem along with workshare issues. Perhaps an extra "Euro carrier" for Germany and Spain would be an inducement but given the other EU defence needs, not realistic.
For Germany and Sweden, buying off the shelf from whatever program becomes available seems like the solution if they don't want to partner up
www.defenseone.com
C-295 is quite a lot smaller & lower performance than a P-3, so whatever's fitted to it it won't be able to do everything a P-3 could. Should be fine for local patrolling, though.
Wonder if this is more about the Spanish Government supporting local manufacturing (C-295 is manufactured in Seville Spain) than buying something like the P-8 to replace the P-3. There is a solid market for aircraft in this class, especially the MSA model.
Maybe a combination of costs, the requirement for a higher amount of platforms and using an own priduct.