WT Forums

_________________
????

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
MIssion Capable rates are so subjective it isnt even funny. A "creative" production sup. can make his jets look alot better than they really are.

<img src="http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/457/bgnrjsiiw81q1gc.jpg" border=0>

Gravity....its not just a good idea, its the law.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I suspect you're 100% right. Are there specific criteria ( as in written down somewhere ) that a frame HAS to meet before being declared ready for duty on a particular day or is there a lot of fudge room as long as no-one is looking?

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.

Absolutely. For example, I have seen jets called in as being FMC (fully mission capable) even though they still had ops checks to do. Your MC rates are calculated different if there are parts on order rather than only maintenance being done. Is quite a visible indicator as to the health of a unit. To borrow a much used expression "there is more than one way to skin a cat".

<img src="http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/457/bgnrjsiiw81q1gc.jpg" border=0>

Gravity....its not just a good idea, its the law.

what about just the opposite? Are jets classed as not MC for some little tiddly-wink pointless not up to spec thing ( like a seat being ripped or something ) that wouldent affect the planes ability to do it's job?

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.

No they wouldnt do that for something cosmetic. A unit wants their jets to be as mission capable as they can (there can be hell to pay if it gets out of hand). There are actually many different levels of mission capable. NMCM is by far the worst that you can have. It shows that maintenance is holding up progress. NMCS is more desireable as it puts the onus back on supply.
FMC= Fully mission capable (self explanatory)
NMC= Non Mission Capable (stil self explanatory)
NMCS= Non Mission Capable Supply (waiting for parts from supply)
NMCM= Non Mission Capable Maintenance (waiting for direct maint)
NMCB= Non Mission Capable Both (needs parts and maint)
PMCS= Partial Mission Capable (needs parts from supply, but can still be flown for some missions)
PMCM= Partial Mission Capable Maint. (needs maint but can still fly some missions)

So as you see there is more to MC rates than meets the eye.

<img src="http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/457/bgnrjsiiw81q1gc.jpg" border=0>

Gravity....its not just a good idea, its the law.

<b>OK, lets say you are the king (and its good to be the king). The V-22 gets the axe, all the money is wasted, and its a good day in Connecticut because the UH-60 production is going to ramp up. The next day, the project killers search the internet and find this hack job:

Posted on: Wednesday, February 14, 2001
Black Hawk crashes kill at least 59 over nine years</b>

I would simply point out that since 1989 the MH-60(and variants) have flown literally millions of sorties compared to the few hundred(or perhaps low few thousand max) of the Osprey.

Statistically, the MH-60 is fantastically safe.

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"One post, One Kill".</b>

BTW, the Blackhawk cruise speed is 140kts...not mph. Typo, sorry.

<b>"There you go again, it's too big oh wait now it doesnt matter lol."</b>

The CH-53 does not make direct combat air assaults, the CH-46 does.

The Osprey will be doing both missions, so size works against the Osprey while it does not work against the CH-53.

And all your bold highlighting, and you leave this little nugget unbolded:

"Relative to the phenomenon, though,<b> the V-22's side-by-side rotor design poses a unique problem. The likelihood is that one rotor will enter vortex ring state before the other, resulting in the kind of severe roll-over seen in the Marana crash sequence." </b>

So it seems as if Boomer is susceptible to the glossing over and selective argument bug too...

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"One post, One Kill".</b>

<b>Was just checking speeds.
V-22 is 247kts at sea level. 250+ at 3,000ft
Stallion wont get past 166kts until it is almost empty regardless of altitude.</b>

MV-22 has a maximum cruise speed of 220kts at sea level.(too fast to be escorted by AH-1Zs, too slow to be escorted by AV-8Bs....hmmmm)

CH-53Es max cruise speed is 165mph at sea level(about 150kts), but have a max speed of 196mph(about 170kts).
MH-60s have a 140kt max cruise speed.
Both are easily escorted with helo gunships.

And as i've said oh, 5 times now, any speed advantadge is more than offset by the CH-53Es much greater mission readiness rate, increased payload, and ease of loading. The CH-53 can also deliver vehicles(slung OR internally), and has more than double the net payload.

You have to compare the entire package and the MISSION, and the entire package greatly prefers the CH-53E in the heavy lift role.

For the air assault MISSION the MH-60 is IMO clearly superior. Much smaller, packing respectible defensive firepower, and a far safer overall design in the face of enemy fire.

And none of the helos cost 107 million dollars a piece(nor anywhere even remotely close).

Cancell Osprey now.

PS: Stress, yes sir, air assault ops are exclusively low level affairs. If you relieve the MV-22 of that role then we need a new CH-46 replacement(cause as has been pointed out it is well and truly obsolete), and the MV-22 isn't as good as the CH-53E in the heavy lift role already, so what exactly is it replacing at 107 million dollars per aircraft?

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"One post, One Kill".</b>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>"Relative to the phenomenon, though, the V-22's side-by-side rotor design poses a unique problem. The likelihood is that one rotor will enter vortex ring state before the other, resulting in the kind of severe roll-over seen in the Marana crash sequence."

So it seems as if Boomer is susceptible to the glossing over and selective argument bug too...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You've quoted that many times, didnt need doing again. Fact is, VRS is avoidable, common to all helos, and can be dealt with easily.

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> too slow to be escorted by AV-8Bs....hmmmm)
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
nonsense.

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> And as i've said oh, 5 times now, any speed advantadge is more than offset by the CH-53Es much greater mission readiness rate, increased payload, and ease of loading. The CH-53 can also deliver vehicles(slung OR internally), and has more than double the net payload.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The mission readiness rate doesnt apply YET, Osprey is still new and few in numbers and you havent posted ready rates for MH-53 vs Osprey anyway.

And where does the "ease of loading" come into play with reguards to speed? On the carrier where they can start the ops at any time they want to? Even 5 minits early to make up for Ospreys alleged slow load time? We should probobly scrap C-17s because they can only load from one end unlike C-5s <img src=newicons/Whatever_anim.gif border=0 align=middle>

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>"too slow to be escorted by AV-8Bs....hmmmm)
nonsense."</b>

Au Contraire, not nonsense. 220kts is waaaaaay below the AV-8s optimal cruise speed. It's range at that speed will be terribly short.

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"One post, One Kill".</b>

<b>The mission readiness rate doesnt apply YET, Osprey is still new and few in numbers and you havent posted ready rates for MH-53 vs Osprey anyway.

And where does the "ease of loading" come into play with reguards to speed? On the carrier where they can start the ops at any time they want to? Even 5 minits early to make up for Ospreys alleged slow load time? We should probobly scrap C-17s because they can only load from one end unlike C-5s </b>

It matters because in the real world things like follow on waves of assault troops, heavy weapons and crucial supply sorties are all required in a timely fashoin, but of course.

Not only does turn around time matter, it is of <b>critical importance</b> in any air assault scenario.

<b>"Fact is, VRS is avoidable, common to all helos, and can be dealt with easily."</b>

Except that when a helo experiences VRS it doesnt roll over onto it's back like an Osprey is apparently prone to do, and in even medium sized helos(and larger) it is very uncommon in any case(according to your article).

And a helo doesn't cost 107 million dollars either.

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"One post, One Kill".</b>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<b>"too slow to be escorted by AV-8Bs....hmmmm)
nonsense."</b>

Au Contraire, not nonsense. 220kts is waaaaaay below the AV-8s optimal cruise speed. It's range at that speed will be terribly short.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Shorter than the helo missions? Of course not. And no reason the Harrier cant fly faster anyway, they can turn you know. I suppose C-130s cant be escorted bt 15s and 16s <img src=newicons/Whatever_anim.gif border=0 align=middle>

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>
<b>"Fact is, VRS is avoidable, common to all helos, and can be dealt with easily."</b>

Except that when a helo experiences VRS it doesnt roll over onto it's back like an Osprey is apparently prone to do, and in even medium sized helos(and larger) it is very uncommon in any case(according to your article).

And a helo doesn't cost 107 million dollars either.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Which part of this did you choose to overlook? oh wait all of it lol
<b>"“The V-22 is much less susceptible to vortex ring state,” Schultz said. “It takes a lot more to get a V-22 into the vortex ring state than any other helicopter.”

The tilt rotor technology even allows for a quicker recovery from this problem by tilting the rotor forward from the helicopter mode and flying out of the vortex ring state, said Lt. Col. Kevin Gross, the chief test pilot from the Marine Corps for the program. To further safeguard against the problem, a device was installed that gives pilots 18 seconds of warning that they might be entering vortex ring state."
</b>

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> The mission readiness rate doesnt apply YET, Osprey is still new and few in numbers and you havent posted ready rates for MH-53 vs Osprey anyway.

And where does the "ease of loading" come into play with reguards to speed? On the carrier where they can start the ops at any time they want to? Even 5 minits early to make up for Ospreys alleged slow load time? We should probobly scrap C-17s because they can only load from one end unlike C-5s

It matters because in the real world things like follow on waves of assault troops, heavy weapons and crucial supply sorties are all required in a timely fashoin, but of course.

Not only does turn around time matter, it is of critical importance in any air assault scenario.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes, that's why you PLAN things. Osprey will still get there first with more range than MH-53 by a wide margin and let the amphibs stand off farther at sea.
MH-53 assault range ( 8000-4000lbs ) -100miles ( actual statements were "not less than 50miles" )
V-22 assault range ( 6000lbs ) +200miles ( actuall statements were 240+ )

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>Which part of this did you choose to overlook? oh wait all of it lol
"“The V-22 is much less susceptible to vortex ring state,” Schultz said. “It takes a lot more to get a V-22 into the vortex ring state than any other helicopter.”

The tilt rotor technology even allows for a quicker recovery from this problem by tilting the rotor forward from the helicopter mode and flying out of the vortex ring state, said Lt. Col. Kevin Gross, the chief test pilot from the Marine Corps for the program. To further safeguard against the problem, a device was installed that gives pilots 18 seconds of warning that they might be entering vortex ring state."</b>


Ahem, from your own link:
http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/rw/sho ... tebook.htm

"Experts agree that any rotorcraft is vulnerable to vortex ring state. (Macdonald's flight test work, therefore, may help advance the safety of all helicopters eventually.) <b>Relative to the phenomenon, though, the V-22's side-by-side rotor design poses a unique problem. The likelihood is that one rotor will enter vortex ring state before the other, resulting in the kind of severe roll-over seen in the Marana crash sequence.</b>

So tell me now again who's leaving out information?

And please do explain to me which aircraft the MV-22 is replacing for 107 mil per, cause i sure can figure it out.

Moving on...

<b>"Yes, that's why you PLAN things."</b>

A) Murphy's law of combat #1: No plan survives first contact with the enemy.
B) Many operational shipborne USMC operations are initiated with almost no warning at all.
C) Regardless of the level of planning the Osprey is claimed to physically take much longer to load than either a MH-60 or a CH-53.
D) And it costs 107 million dollars.

If it is indeed the hangar queen that it is claimed to be(According to GAO it requires 70% more maint hours/flight hour than the 40yo CH46 http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c401.htm ), then it's lowered availability rate is going to combine with the above problems and further exacerbate the issue resulting in even longer turnaround times.

<b>Osprey will still get there first with more range than MH-53 by a wide margin and let the amphibs stand off farther at sea.</b>

The Amphibs <b>MUST</b> be within a maximum of approx 50nm from the coast because that's what all the slung load requirements max range stipulations are(for Osprey, MH60, and for CH-53Es). No can fight without outsized slung loads(arty, vehicles, palleted ammo, fuel bladders, etc, etc).

Got that? Forget that argument, it is DOA.

50nm is the REAL WORLD range an air assault is going to occur...maximum. Don't tell the enemy...

PS: the USN and USMC CH-53E Super Stallion is the relevant aircraft here, not the USAF MH-53E Pave Low.

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"One post, One Kill".</b>

<b>Shorter(AV-8B vs MV-22 range) than the helo missions? Of course not.</b>

Hey, you're the one touting the MV-22s 'long range'. Well guess what, at 220kts a Harrier will be bingo fuel LONG before an Osprey, ESPECIALLY at low level. I bet the Harriers combat radius at that speed at low level with any kind of a bombload is no more than about 25nm maximum. I reckon that only a Harrier pilot could answer that for sure. 220kts is waaaaaaaay under the ideal cruise speed for the Harrier.

<b>And no reason the Harrier cant fly faster anyway, they can turn you know.</b>

Then it's not close escort anymore. Then they can't respond with immediate fire...nor shield the transports with their own fuselages either.

<b>I suppose C-130s cant be escorted bt 15s and 16s </b>

C-130s do 375mph, Osprey's do not. Even still, 375mph is probably well below the optimal cruise speed of either aircraft anyway.

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"One post, One Kill".</b>

Boomer, 50nm is the max range of slung loads for all USN and USMC aircraft(tilt or otherwise).

Osprey does not change that.

50nm is therefore the approx max standoff range of ALL USMC amphib assaults UNLESS outsized loads are taken ashore on LCACS(a MUCH slower process than flying them).

Osprey changes nothing. Frankly, your ignorance is utterly amazing.

As far as VRS, it is a problem unique to osprey.....because no other aircraft is prone to roll onto it's back.

A helo exhibiting VRS in an LZ will slam down onto it's landing gear or skids....people will be effed up, but people will live.

An Osprey that rolls onto it's back in an LZ kills 27 men, end of story.

PS: I've never seen any Helo have to abort a landing in an LZ unless personnel got in the way(and that i've seen twice).

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"One post, One Kill".</b>

<b>no, the "real world" has demonstrated the Osprey pilots need a warning to avoid VRS and now they get an 18 second heads-up to stay out of trouble. A truckload of Marines died because proper testing didnt reveal this till it was too late for them ( I complained about that at the time ).</b>

And let me guess, you actually believe that a pilot will get a warning 18 seconds in advance of VRS, right?

I dont even know what the hell that means....an 18 second warning.

Any rotorcraft is subject to the near instantaneous onset of VRS if the pilot yanks the controls in just the wrong way for a few seconds.

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"One post, One Kill".</b>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>"Experts agree that any rotorcraft is vulnerable to vortex ring state. (Macdonald's flight test work, therefore, may help advance the safety of all helicopters eventually.) Relative to the phenomenon, though, the V-22's side-by-side rotor design poses a unique problem. The likelihood is that one rotor will enter vortex ring state before the other, resulting in the kind of severe roll-over seen in the Marana crash sequence.

So tell me now again who's leaving out information?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I POSTED that link nimrod lolol I didnt leave out anything.
"unique" not unavoidable. You can play with the words all you want, but you lost the VRS argument long ago, it's an OLD red herring for Osprey haters to hack at.

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> C) Regardless of the level of planning the Osprey is claimed to physically take much longer to load than either a MH-60 or a CH-53.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
You STILL havent posted ANY source that claimes that.

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>If it is indeed the hangar queen that it is claimed to be(According to GAO it requires 70% more maint hours/flight hour than the 40yo CH46 http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/comments/c401.htm ), then it's lowered availability rate is going to combine with the above problems and further exacerbate the issue resulting in even longer turnaround times. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
That link doesnt state WHEN those numbers were taken from, probobly the 1995-99 frame as I mentioned before when the Osprey "fleet" ( very small fleet at this point) was having problems.
BUT, that link DID state this:
"A major asterisk to the Coyle's rating of "operationally effective" is his note that the Chief of Naval Operations waived numerous requirements. The reasons for the waivers included incomplete testing of subsystems or the need to redesign them. In the case of a defensive gun, the money to pay for it hadn't materialized.

As a result of Navy waivers, the report said, the following "significant" shortfalls exist: "aircraft flight envelope not cleared for air combat maneuvering; no flight allowed in deicing conditions; inadequate nuclear, biological and chemical overpressure protection; inadequate cargo handling system and airdrop capability; unable to carry external loads at night due to incorrect radar altimeter readings; no production representative auxiliary fuel tank; unable to fastrope out of the cabin door."

The Marine Corps' Nevers said the deficiencies were "not crucial to the operational effectiveness and suitability of the aircraft," and the MV-22 has "met or exceeded its key performance parameters." In fact, he said, <b>the number of waived requirements that the MV-22 program asked for and received was "the lowest of any aircraft in aviation history.</b>""

So the "hangar queen" branding is questionable, and the "performance waivers" argument is also over.

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> The Amphibs MUST be within a maximum of approx 50nm from the coast because that's what all the slung load requirements max range stipulations are(for Osprey, MH60, and for CH-53Es). No can fight without outsized slung loads(arty, vehicles, palleted ammo, fuel bladders, etc, etc).

Got that? Forget that argument, it is DOA.

50nm is the REAL WORLD range an air assault is going to occur...maximum. Don't tell the enemy...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Why? because the older helos cant do it, Osprey will change all that.

"PS: the USN and USMC CH-53E Super Stallion is the relevant aircraft here, not the USAF MH-53E Pave Low."
PPS: CH-53E looks WORSE than MH cause Pave Low carries almost no load in it's normal mission. Plus that website says Ospreys replacing the D not the E.
PLUS the range numbers I posted were for the CH-53E.
Osprey wins again.



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.