WT Forums

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> I bet the Ospreys combat radius at that speed at low level with any kind of a bombload is no more than about 25nm maximum.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
HUH? I can only guess you mean Harrier not Osprey.
CAS mission ( worst performance one for the Harrier )for AV-8B with 6 500lb bombs, 6 pylons, guns and NO extra fuel is 1.9 hours. If it were escorting Ospreys that were only flying at 200kts it would still be a 150 mile mission capability for the AV-8B. Another bet you would loose, Osprey and Harrier soldier on with another victory.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Then it's not close escort anymore. Then they can't respond with immediate fire...nor shield the transports with their own fuselages either. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Shield the trash haulers with thier own fusalage? WTF? I'm guessing your planning on using the extremely small cross section of a Cobra (and LOTS of them ) to shield the rather much larger CH-46s or CH-60s or CH-53s. Harriers could respond with "immediate fire" almost as quick as embedded escort, not quite but almost. Harrier would have better sytems for finding and avoiding threats as well as knocking them out before the Ospreys even got there.

" suppose C-130s cant be escorted bt 15s and 16s

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

btw MAX cruise speed for C-130H is 335<u>KTS</u>, less with a load, average cruise speed is 300kts.

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



Edited by - boomer on Apr 04 2006 4:01 PM

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

<b>You STILL havent posted ANY source that claimes that.</b>

Did you actually read the Ricconi piece?

Obviously, the answer is no.

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

<b>"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."</b>

I'm sorry, do you need a timeout 'nimrod'?

You posted all kinds of links highlighting the parts that support your side of the argument in bold, but then you left that part unhighlighted, and the second time you didnt even mention it.

An Osprey is prone to roll on it's back during VRS, your own link says so. So if you want to gloss over facts do it elsewhere.




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

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

50nm is the max slung load specified range for the Osprey, CH-53E, and MH-60.

Osprey does not change that. Period.

Got that?

Or do i need to repeat myself again?


Osprey does not change that. Period.

Osprey does nothing unique, it does not even replace any existing airframe, and when compared to contemporary platforms vs the MISSION REQUIREMENTS it falls FAR short. Osprey is a VASTLY expensive all new 'capability' that leaves VERY REAL needs COMPLETELY UNADRESSED.

The FACT is that the CH-46 still needs replacing because the MV-22 is just plain no good for the direct assault role.

Further, the FACT is that the MV-22 has approx 1/2 the max load capacity of the CH-53D, so again, it does not replace that aircraft either.

The Osprey is a 'tweener', and replaces NO existing airframe.

And it costs 107 million dollars a copy.

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

<b>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.</b>

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt.

They are from the GAO 2001 report(the last public figures i could find).

<b>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, the number of waived requirements that the MV-22 program asked for and received was "the lowest of any aircraft in aviation history.""</b>

And ANY of that supports the Osprey is good argument how exactly?

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

Nope, it is what it is. Circa 2001 the Osprey took 70% more maintenance manhours/flight hour than the FORTY YEAR OLD CH-46E.

And it costs 107 million dollars per.

<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>You posted all kinds of links highlighting the parts that support your side of the argument in bold, but then you left that part unhighlighted, and the second time you didnt even mention it.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Yeah I'm the only one doing that in this thread LOLOL I dont need to highlight the stuff YOU have already posted.

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> An Osprey is prone to roll on it's back during VRS, your own link says so. So if you want to gloss over facts do it elsewhere.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

So dont go into VRS! I dont think your thinking clearly, you dont stall a plane on final and you dont drive a helo into VRS if you know what's good for you. The famous crash ONLY happened because ship number 2 exceeded operating parameters by trying to squeeze it in instead of doing a go around. Did the pilot know that? I dont know, but that's the programs fault not the Ospreys.

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.

So your solution in a hot LZ is to "go around" if the approach(due to jinking or avoiding fire or other swerving aircraft or whatever) gets the little idiot light on the dash of the MV-22 blinking???

Compared to the inability to autorotate the VRS is a minimal issue to me really, but it IS an issue because unlike a helo if it does enter VRS(and the real world has demonstrated that it CAN HAPPEN unexpectedly) it is prone to roll on it's back and almost certainly kill everyone aboard(i figure 27 men with a full load).

I hold no INHERENT hatred of the MV-22, but as a guy who has some formal training(albeit basic) wrt shooting helos out of the sky with small arms(it's really easy to score hits- just ask the illiterate VC, Somalis, Iraqis, and Afghanis), and as a guy who's done no small amount of air assaults in his day, i have to HONESTLY state i think that Osprey is ALL WRONG for the MISSION REQUIREMENTS.

And it is OBVIOUSLY too small to replace the CH-53 in the heavy lift department.

So again, i ask......even IF it works....WHAT DOES IT REPLACE?

And at 107 million a pop, can we afford it at ALL?

Obviously, i sure dont think so.

<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> You STILL havent posted ANY source that claimes that.

Did you actually read the Ricconi piece?

Obviously, the answer is no.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Snipe this is the only link you posted in this entire thread ( other than re-posting mine )
http://www.sensiblepriorities.org/artic ... atross.htm
it IS by Ricphoni and doesnt say anything about Osprey being slow or difficult to load or unload.

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>So your solution in a hot LZ is to "go around" if the approach(due to jinking or avoiding fire or other swerving aircraft or whatever) gets the little idiot light on the dash of the MV-22 blinking??? <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
YUP!!! that's what every other aircraft does rather than crash!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Compared to the inability to autorotate the VRS is a minimal issue to me really, <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

good because you spent a LOT of time losing that argument in this thread.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
but it IS an issue because unlike a helo if it does enter VRS(and the real world has demonstrated that it CAN HAPPEN unexpectedly)
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
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 ).

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

Edited by - boomer on Apr 04 2006 8:29 PM

_________________
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>50nm is the max slung load specified range for the Osprey, CH-53E, and MH-60.

Osprey does not change that. Period.

Got that?

Or do i need to repeat myself again?


Osprey does not change that. Period.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I say repeat it again because Osprey WILL change it just as every new advancement has changed tactics.

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.

"Fucking Idiot"??
So why couldent you win this argument/discussion??

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.

Boomer, i have shown that any Amphib op beyond approx 50nm is unlikely(in the extreme) to occur based simply on the specified slung range requirement for ALL USN/USMC shipborne tactical aircraft. Without outsized slung loads you can forget any sort of major operation at all.

I have also provided an extremely compelling argument that it's got no business in the air assault role(an argument stress seemed to have no argument at all comprehending, and a point he conceded long ago).

And it is clearly inferior to the CH-53(any model) in the heavy lift role(in fact it flat out cannot perform a heavy lift role).

So i have demonstrated it does not replace the UH-1/CH-46 for air assault operations, nor CAN it replace the CH-53 for heavy lift ops.

So again i ask....what does it replace at 107 million a pop?

The answer of course, is sanity.

Had you ever been involved in even a single Air Assault oepration you'd have a much different perspective on the 'merit' of loading 27 men into a huge target that has ZERO defensive weaponry and little/no armored protection of it's critical components, and then flying that huge target into a hot LZ.

The Osprey is a MASSIVELY overpriced disaster.

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

This should make the argument a little more interesting. There's a little more to the article but it deals with the strike that ended last weekend. An interesting part of the strike was the workers ended up accepting virtually the same contract offer that was originally proposed.

http://www.courant.com/business/hc-utc0406.artapr06,0,4283916.story?coll=hc-headlines-business


After Strike, Good News
Sikorsky Gets Big Contract, Pledge On Jobs

April 6, 2006
By DAVID LIGHTMAN, Washington Bureau Chief And PAUL MARKS Courant Staff Writer

Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. workers, back to work Wednesday after a six-week strike, got a double shot of good news: Sikorsky has landed a $3 billion military helicopter contract, and the chief executive of its parent company, United Technologies Corp., said he has no plan to move jobs out of Connecticut.

The Navy announced Wednesday that Sikorsky will handle design and testing of the CH-53K, the next-generation CH-53E "Super Stallion," for use by the Marines. Eventually, the Marines expect to buy 156 of the aircraft.

Sikorsky spokesman Edward Steadham was unable to say whether the multiyear contract will create new jobs.

"There's certainly going to be a demand for a couple hundred engineers to be dedicated to the program," he said. "But overall employment depends on how well all our programs are doing, and they are on the upswing."

Expected to run through 2015, the CH-53K contract calls for the development of a new heavy-lift helicopter, capable of carrying 13½ tons, to replace aging Super Stallions now seeing heavy action in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sikorsky already has received $80 million worth of contracts for preliminary work on the new Super Stallion, Steadham said.

Sikorsky is holding a competition to choose an engine supplier for the CH-53K and will make a choice by the end of the year, he said.

OC

Some days it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints

Thanx Chief. Tis just as Stress said it would be if the 53 was brought back into producation.....an all new model.

That pretty well proves that Osprey isnt "replacing" a single CH53, though that is obvious from a percursory glance at the two aircraft's lift capabilities anyway.

Now toss in some MH-60s and you have a complete team that doesn't require even a single 107 million dollar Osprey.

Recapitalize the USMC fleet with CH-53s and MH-60s, and not only is the USMC vastly better off, but they get back a HUGE chunk of change to boot.

The fact that the US Army has never shown any real interest in re-equipping at least the 101st Abn with Ospreys ought to tell anyone interested just how much faith the Army has in it as an air assault bird.

Ie, none.

PS: Check out the slung load range/weight requirements of the CH-53K: 27000lbs to 110nm.

Hmmm....why that's 2.7times more than Osprey can haul(3k more than the 53E), and it can haul it more than twice as far to boot(as any current USMC/USN helo or Osprey).

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

It will be interesting to see the price tag on the K.

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.

Agreed , also of interest is how long it will take to get ready.

Something tells me that stress's predictions will(as usual) be very close to the end result.


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

Lets be honest in THIS country things are so bad ( wheather it's military or your next pair of shoes ) that if something is said to be good AND cheap , we dont believe it and look at it with suspicion.

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.

I haven't been around here in awhile but I'm glad to see there is somewhere here with the same dissapointment in the Osprey program as I. While it may be great to have say 4 on board every MEU, I'd still want in addition to that 8 more MH-60S to accomplish the mission and do the real work.

DICKcheney axed the F-14D after it had been Congressionally approved and the funds allocated to it, so perhaps the Osprey buy can still at the least be reduced. You could cut the buy in half and replace the other airframes with MH-60S's and have the moeney to pay for your CH-53K's, hopefully that new program will force the Marines to waiver on their chimerical Osprey illusisons. I will always stand in amazement how those such as now retired Marine General and staunch advocate of the Osprey program in front of the media and politicans when after he retired he:

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
McCorkle joined the board of directors and as a senior advisor for GKN Aerospace Services (V-22 fuel tanks). He also serves on the Rolls-Royce North America board of directors (V-22 engines), and is a member of the board of directors of Lord Corporation (V-22 components). In addition, he has served as a consultant for Boeing Aerospace (V-22 maker) and Optical Air Data Systems (V-22 low airspeed indicator). <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

http://www.g2mil.com/V-22costs.htm

I don't know how familiar you all may be with the MH-60S but my friend that I used to work for whilst turning avionics on Marine Phrogs is installing the avionics on the new models for the Navy and is quite impressed all around. I always use to say the best helicopters the Marines had were the eight H-60's they had at HMX.

Were/are you a Marine Krieger?

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

Former H-46 avionics guy - I used to go by another name around here a few years back while I was finishing up school when I rose the <img src=newicons/anim_bs.gif border=0 align=middle> flag on Mudd I believe it was and you banned me! <img src=icon_smile_tongue.gif border=0 align=middle> I haven't been around in awhile but I like your spirted defense against the Osprey so we'll just have to see what happens this time around.

Big Vette i presume?

The F18E/F comments were a bit of a giveaway, lol.

You can stay as long as you can play nice with the other hoglets.

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

<b>"Lets be honest in THIS country things are so bad ( wheather it's military or your next pair of shoes ) that if something is said to be good AND cheap , we dont believe it and look at it with suspicion."</b>

What's that saying?

Customer: I want quality, performance, and economy.
Merchant: Pick any two.

You're right. That was one of the first lesssons i learned when i first went into business for myself(at the time as an auto mechanic). If you charged too low a price not only did people not come back, but they badmouthed you as being 'cheap'.

I call it the 'maaco syndrome'.

I doubled my prices and i had all the work i ever wanted. Unfortunatley for me, i hated that damned line of work.

<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>
Big Vette i presume?

The F18E/F comments were a bit of a giveaway, lol.

You can stay as long as you can play nice with the other hoglets.

<img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b343/m21sniper/OnTheJobEnhanced.jpg" border=0>
<b>"One post, One Kill".</b>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>Hehehe, I've actually grown to like the Block II Fox Hornets alright, now if we could just get the upgraded F414's GE has ready to go!

_________________
????