WT Forums

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Beyond that it is a mutlirole deep strike fighter.

The best ever made as a matter of fact.

Were you paiyng attention when we shot down over 50 enemy aircraft A2A during the decade of the 90s?

And wtf, when was the last time we did a major amphibious invasion?

Inchon.

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"Excuse me sir, i'm going to require your car keys".</b>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Amphibious assault is only one mission for Osprey, SOCOM is wetting it's pants for Osprey due to it's deep insertion capabilities. It's SAR capabilities make other helos a joke in comparison.

Yes yes the F-15 et al shot down a lot of planes during the 90's, has the F-22 yet? Of course not, we have no idea what the F-22 will eventually do ( but it WILL do it well, it will be/is the first fighter class aircraft with "soft kill" capabilities due to it's radar ).

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
It probably will...one at a time and, unfortunately, with all aboard.<img src=icon_smile_sad.gif border=0 align=middle>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yeah, everything augers in eventually. Like this one last year, unfortunately:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... han.crash/

Thursday, April 7, 2005 Posted: 12:17 AM EDT (0417 GMT)

Sixteen people were killed when a coalition helicopter traveling in "severe weather" crashed in Afghanistan, the Pentagon said.
Eighteen people, including crew and passengers, were listed on the flight manifest. Two people remain unaccounted for.

A CH-47 Chinook helicopter crashed near Ghazni, roughly 100 miles (160 kilometers) southwest of Kabul on Wednesday.

"The chopper was one of two Chinooks returning to Bagram Air Field from a routine mission in southern Afghanistan. The second helicopter arrived safely at Bagram Air Field," the military said in a news release.

The military said recovery operations have ended for the night because of darkness and weather conditions...



Ninety percent of the game is half mental.

Edited by - a10stress on Mar 29 2006 12:21 PM
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Well I've seen enough.
I call for immediate retrival and destruction of this flawed aircraft family. Obviously these Chinooks cant even perform a "routine mission" without killing someone. Innocent lives lost, and for what? Padding Boeings bank account THAT'S what. I also call for the arrest and execution of anyone still at Boeing who hasnt already been arrested this year!!

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<b>"Yes Stress, any and every nut bolt and wire and any person who has anything to do with Osprey is a murderer. We are so panzy in this country now that NO risk is acceptable with a new sytem, NONE what so ever. Osprey is a clear advantage and upgrade to verticle lift but oh my it's new and must not have any problems or else it's bad. Lets pull a British move and cancel everything that has ever harmed anyone especially if it has anything to do with the military. Some people around here get certain things in thier head and cant see past thier own opinion."</b>

Nonsense, it is overpriced and underperforms.

The fuccking thing has been cancelled twice for a reason you know...

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"Excuse me sir, i'm going to require your car keys".</b>

<b>"A valid cricism, I'm afraid, but what else can be done now that the development money is spent and the alternatives are out of production?"</b>

Buy MH-60s and some CH-53s and save more than half of the 19 billion we havn't yet spent(but that is projected) on this roach.

The Osprey represents the entire USMC budget for 3 years, so they had to spread the purchase out over TWENTY YEARS to reach the USMCs stated 'need' number.

Someone should really be shot..

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"Excuse me sir, i'm going to require your car keys".</b>

<b>Amphibious assault is only one mission for Osprey, SOCOM is wetting it's pants for Osprey due to it's deep insertion capabilities. It's SAR capabilities make other helos a joke in comparison.</b>

Dude who is feeding you this BULLSHIT?

The USAF is only buying 40 Ospreys in total, and is trying to back that number down to free up more F-22 money.

The US Army should be ALL OVER Osprey if it's worth a crap for the 101st Abn.

Yet not one OUNCE of interest.

Osprey does nothing that the MH-53E doesnt already do BETTER.
(did you read ricciones piece that just came out the other day?)

<b>"Yes yes the F-15 et al shot down a lot of planes during the 90's, has the F-22 yet? Of course not, we have no idea what the F-22 will eventually do ( but it WILL do it well, it will be/is the first fighter class aircraft with "soft kill" capabilities due to it's radar )."</b>

So what's your friggin gripe?

Besides, the F22's value extends into the SEAD and deep strike role anyway.

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"Excuse me sir, i'm going to require your car keys".</b>

_________________
????

_________________
????

<b>"We are so panzy in this country now that NO risk is acceptable with a new sytem, NONE what so ever."</b>

Nonsense, it's just not worth the money. It's really very simple.

<b>Osprey is a clear advantage and upgrade to verticle lift but oh my it's new and must not have any problems or else it's bad. Lets pull a British move and cancel everything that has ever harmed anyone especially if it has anything to do with the military. Some people around here get certain things in thier head and cant see past thier own opinion.</b>

As opposed to you who has spent exactly zero seconds of your life conducting an air assault? Now i aint gonna play myself off as some kinda expert(cause i aint), but at least i've actually been involved in air assaults before. So don't be dismissing other peoples opinions, especially reasoned opinions from people who've actually done some of these things for a living.

Besides, it is counterproductive to the purpose of a discussion forum.

Ospreys unique operational deficincies and flight restrictions combine to make it a defacto DEATHTRAP in a hot LZ. It is a truly GIGANTIC target, it cannot autorotate, it's rotors are also gigantic targets and are addled with 10s of feet of very vulnerable unarmored linkage, and to top it all off it has a much lower combat approach/descent speed on final approach than a modern helo.

Osprey is the answer to a question that nobody has ever asked.

The question?

How do you make a helicopter even MORE vulnerable to ground fire.

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"Excuse me sir, i'm going to require your car keys".</b>

<b>Snipe, H-60s won't do it by themselves and CH-53s are not in production. There will not be any savings if the -53 is re-engineered and put back in production. They couldn't do it within 5 years anyway. What would be used in the interim? It's over.</b>

MH60s would be completley fine when combined with the existing UH-1Z, and CH53E fleets.

I simply do not agree with the contention that it would take 5 years to bring CH53E back into production AS IS(cause AS IS it's way better than osprey already).

Osprey is still VERY likely to get cancelled well before it's production run(which spans two decades) is over. Very, very likely.

If for no other reason than it's maintenance costs are exorbinant and it's readiness rates SUCK.(on top of all the other problems!)

It's never too late to stop fighting as long as that production line is open.

Osprey is the POSTER CHILD of pork.

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"Excuse me sir, i'm going to require your car keys".</b>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Osprey does nothing that the MH-53E doesnt already do BETTER.
(did you read ricciones piece that just came out the other day?)<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The -53 can't do 275 knots and it can not manueuver like a V-22 can in airplane mode. They are just too different to compare. Maybe you don't think it's necessary, but some people think "Speed is Life" (sorry, I've heard that a lot criticizing the A-10). Is Col. Riccione weighing in again? That old fighter mafia horse thief. What a card. Gimmie the link. I gotta give it a read.



Ninety percent of the game is half mental.

_________________
????

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=riccio ... al&fr=moz2

Here's that riccioni pdf where he DESTROYS the speed argument and every other facet of the 'osprey is better' lie.

And it is just that....a lie.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Osprey does nothing that the MH-53E doesnt already do BETTER.
(did you read ricciones piece that just came out the other day?)<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

<b>The -53 can't do 275 knots and it can not manueuver like a V-22 can in airplane mode. </b>

And an Osprey cant airlift a LAV-25 like a CH53 can. And it can't ingress/egress as the LZ as fast either. And it doesn't have as much range at low alt where real world ops are actually flown. And it takes much longer to load. And it's got a cabin maybe 1/3 the size.

I'll give up that 240 knot sprint speed for all that any day of the week.

And seriously bro, what kind of manuevers you expecting it to pull with a belly full of heavily laden marines anyway?

Finally, maybe speed is life, but the one part where it matters, in the LZ, the Osprey is much slower than the competition and it is vulnerable, and it is HUGE. As far as the 240kt transit speed, that is WELL within the engagement capabilities of every 1/2 assed AAA and SAM system in existance. We lost plenty of 600kt Phantoms skimming the trees in Vietnam to 60s era armed Peasants, so 240kts means about ZERO to me as a safety aid.

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"Excuse me sir, i'm going to require your car keys".</b><b></b>

FIM-92A's can knock out Osprey's and Helo's with ease... get rid of all of them mwuhahahahahah

"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up"
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v60/jollyrogerspaintball/cup.gif" border=0>

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

If a blackhawk gets hit it can at least autorotate, and at least it's got some armor, and if it does go down and kill all aboard, it's still 1/2 the loss you face from Osprey.

I dont like tactical combat vehicles that hold more than a dozen guys TOPS. Even then, i prefer the 8-9 man crews of the M-2 and LAV-25 vs the big 13 man contingent of an M113 or the 15 man contingent of a Stryker, let alone the 20+ man contingent of the LVTP-7 AMTRAK.

Likewise ive always maintianed that the CH47 should not be exposed to direct enemy fire either. It's simply TOO EASY TO HIT, and from great distances. The damned things are literally BIGGER than a house.

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"Excuse me sir, i'm going to require your car keys".</b>

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If a blackhawk gets hit it can at least autorotate, and at least it's got some armor, and if it does go down and kill all aboard, it's still 1/2 the loss you face from Osprey.

I dont like tactical combat vehicles that hold more than a dozen guys TOPS. Even then, i prefer the 8-9 man crews of the M-2 and LAV-25 vs the big 13 man contingent of an M113 or the 15 man contingent of a Stryker, let alone the 20+ man contingent of the LVTP-7 AMTRAK.

Likewise ive always maintianed that the CH47 should not be exposed to direct enemy fire either. It's simply TOO EASY TO HIT, and from great distances. The damned things are literally BIGGER than a house.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
hehehe I agree on all counts... I was just stiring the pot >:)

As far as the Osprey goes (aside from the large number of troops) I definetly dislike its (poor) chances of a first hit survival... A stinger or Strela hiting one of the engine nacelles will
A. Blow the engine
B. Probly blow the gear changing crap that would allow the other engine to power that prop.
C. Snap role to the damage side and auger in. very poor chances for the guys in side.

In all honesty I'd rather be in a Chinook, and much rather be in a 60...

"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up"
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v60/jollyrogerspaintball/cup.gif" border=0>

Edited by - Stinger on Mar 29 2006 2:52 PM

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

"Snipe, be realistic. It took more than 5 years to bring the C-130J to production. It would take several years for the congress to authorize it. "As-is" is not possible because the parts can not be procured now, so it can't be built to the old drawings. John McCain (and the aviation industry) would insist on a competition with a US-101 variant, a new sheet of paper design, or another European type. I think the -53 would be re-engineered for modern engines and avionics in order to compete. A "crash" program would still take 3 years but don't bet the ranch on that. The Marines would likely never get the heavy lift. Sorry, that's the way I see it."

The C-130J is a heavily computerized and IMO overly complex beast.

I wouldn't even WANT the modern treatment for the new Stallions. IMO, a lot of that gadgetry is ENTIRELY purpose defeating by the time you factor in the cost. We are afterall, talking about CARGO aircraft.
I suspect youre right they'd try to reinvent the Sea Stallion, but again, it's just stupidity.

AS IS the CH53E is a perfectly capable heavy lift helicopter. Probably the best overall HELICOPTER DESIGN in the entire US military.

But even if it did take 3 years, the Corps can soldier on for 3 more years with the crap they've got. They're not getting Ospreys at any more than a trickle of a pace anyway, so a lot of those old birds will still be flying 8-9-10 years from now.

PS- if we have reached the point where we cant bring back an existing design in 3 years then we're well and truly boned if there's ever a world war scale event again. Well and truly boned.

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"Excuse me sir, i'm going to require your car keys".</b>

Stinger, id rather be in a Huey than any of them!

The USMC hit a homerun by holding onto and upgrading their old hueys.

Nice small target(a blackhawk is a good 25% bigger than a UH1 i bet).

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"Excuse me sir, i'm going to require your car keys".</b>

well if truth be known I like being "in the rear with the EPW's" >:) nothing between me and the ground but the bottom of my boots.

and Volume wise I'd say the Blackhawk is at least 25% larger... if not more

"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up"
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v60/jollyrogerspaintball/cup.gif" border=0>

Edited by - Stinger on Mar 29 2006 3:01 PM

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

Ive rode in both. Especially inside, the Blackhawk is a much bigger aircraft, i am just not sure exactly how much, lol.

Someone will post it im sure...

<b>"in the rear with the EPW's" </b>

Put me in the rear, in the REAR WITH THE GEAR!

LOL.

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"Excuse me sir, i'm going to require your car keys".</b>

Stress I have nothing against contractors and personally do not feel they are trying to rob Joe taxpayer or hurt the military.

Fender

"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it."
George Bernard Shaw

Man that's not what he told me on PM earlier today Stress. <img src=icon_smile_tongue.gif border=0 align=middle>

Hehehehehe, i am of course kidding.

We all respect your opinion GREATLY Stress, but we still think osprey sucks.

They should call the damned airplane the MV-22 Arlen Specter.

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"Excuse me sir, i'm going to require your car keys".</b>

_________________
????

_________________
????

_________________
????