It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


V-22s With Forward Firing Weapons

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 02:09 PM
I think putting some guns/rockets on the Osprey comes from an appreciation of what Russia's Mi-24 Hind could do in forward insertion type scenarios. Other dedicated attack helicopters couldn't keep up to support the V-22, but it's nice to have the option of some limited air cover using the same aircraft that puts troops on the ground.

posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 11:18 AM
Check out this video. About 4 minutes in they show the IDWS in action.

posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 08:23 PM

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: justwanttofly

Yeah, it sure would be neat to have one of those.

*walks off whistling*

Pakistan has modern air defense radar, right?

And Osama was holed up in a modern big city, right?

And two helicopters with SEALs flew in, right?

And Pakistan AF didn't know about it, right?

you know how to whistle don't you? You put two and two together and blow.

posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 09:30 AM
a reply to: mbkennel

Speaking about one of those.

Has anymore come to light of the two choppers used in the raid?

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 01:34 AM
a reply to: grey580

Had a friend tell me they are based out of groom. There were also some MH47s involved, modified SOAR E model I believe. I'm actually pretty interested in those platforms. Chinooks are not stealthy....something went on there. Apparently, FWIH, there is a permanent chalk outline on the deck of the -47 that carried UBL out.

I should add they are of the 160th SOAR.
edit on 7-1-2015 by aholic because: addition

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 03:11 AM
a reply to: aholic

Lots of folks think the V-22 was used in the raid as well.

USSOCOM awarded a contract to Boeing to modify several MH-60s to the low-observable design “in the ’99 to 2000 timeframe,” he said.
Initial plans called for the low-observable Black Hawks to be formed into a new unit commanded by a lieutenant colonel and located at a military facility in Nevada, the retired special operations aviator said. “The intent was always to move it out west where it could be kept in a covered capability,” he said.
USSOCOM planned to assign about 35 to 50 personnel to the unit, the retired special operations aviator said. “There were going to be four [low-observable] aircraft, they were going to have a couple of ‘slick’ unmodified Black Hawks, and that was going to be their job was to fly the low-observables.”
SOCOM canceled those plans “within the last two years,” but not before at least some of the low-observable helicopters had been delivered to the Nevada facility, the retired aviator said. “I don’t know if it was for money or if it was because the technology was not achieving the reduction in the radar cross-section that they were hoping for,” he said. In the meantime, MH-60 Black Hawk crews from the 160th’s 1st Battalion, headquartered at Fort Campbell, Ky., would rotate to Nevada to train on the stealthy aircraft, he said.

Read more:

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 08:24 AM
Probably as good place as any to see if anyone has heard about the SOFTA?
Check out the top left craft.

Was watching a vid on YT and the guy mentioned an Aircraft called the Boeing "SOFTA" and he produced some fairly well prepared looking schematics that are the same/very similar to these:

A quick search on line shows it was allegedley developed as a Special Forces Vertical Lift Craft with some sort of eventual cross over to Senior Citizen via a common mission profile or shared technology (Propulsion/Shape/Material etc)
The core mission objectives (during the 80's when it was developed?) seem to be:

" To be invisible to radar, infrared and acoustic sensors (even to the naked eye), the ASALT/SENIOR CITIZEN is something of a technological challenge. The aircraft is of triangular shape and fitted with three lights of variable intensity, positioned on each of the three angles. Their purpose may be to conceal the aircraft's true shape at night. In daytime, other lights may be used in greater number to hide the plane, making it invisible beyond 3 kilometers. More recent information has transpired about SENIOR CITIZEN. In 1990, additional flight testing is said to have taken place in Tehachapi Mountains, near Northrop's Tejon Canyon microwave research center. Witnesses describe a flat, triangular aircraft with rounded nose and leading edge. The example observed presented a black area in its middle"

I can't find the link again but read claims to be from a special forces person that they inserted via one of these during the Gulf War , they flew in packs and were the original companions of the F117's.

Based on the Ospreys are these craft just wishful thinking?

Did occur to me that if a craft had rotars this might be a chink in its stealthy armor but then I keep thinking about that "setting strobes up experiment" comment from the resident Space Traveler
edit on 7-1-2015 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 11:29 PM
a reply to: Jukiodone

These types of aircraft absolutely exist. I doubt they have the maintenance support to keep them flying for long, especially in the main stream military but as test and evail platforms for sure, certain. And I can corroborate what you said about the gulf. It wouldn't be the first time something got pulled off the shelf for a unique mission.

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 11:34 PM
a reply to: Jukiodone
who knows if this is debunked. looks like what I'm familiar with however.

posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 11:42 PM
a reply to: Jukiodone

THANKS my guys though I was NUTS describing one.1/7 Cav Desert Sheild/Storm.

posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 12:26 AM
I would imagine the future of EW will enable a plane to project the RCS of whatever kind of plane it wants, or doesn't want the enemy to see. Having a companion EW escort might help cover another more vulnerable craft. Just a thought?

posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 03:51 AM
a reply to: aholic

Yeah the Gulf story wont go away...seen similar stories before ( one guy alludes to a special forces guy telling him and next thing it is Internet gospel) but it does seem to keep popping up.
I went through a few similar vids and they all look entirely feasible as potential triangular black projects due to the conventional flight lights.

a reply to: cavtrooper7]
As I was wont go away. Are you saying you saw one?

No source on this but a report from Scaled Composites on SOFFA ( which later became SOFTA Special Operations Forces Tactical Aircraft)

"On May 23, 1991, LTV Aircraft Products Group of Dallas, Texas (LTV) contracted with Scaled Composites to prepare a preliminary design study and a prototyping plan for a proposed Special Operations Forces Transport Aircraft (SOFTA). The requirements for the SOFFA transport were stated as follows:

Need: the capability to penetrate unfriendly territory in a clandestine manner and to infiltrate/exfiltrate/resupply Special Forces teams or equipment at an unprepared site.

Design Mission: penetrate 1000 NM into unfriendly territory (no payload) and exflltrate clandestinely an Army Special Forces “A” team of 12 personnel and 500 pounds of equipment, 4,500 pound total payload, and return 1000 NM to the Forward Operating Location.

Design Reguirements:

STOL required - 1000 to 1500 foot over 50 foot obstacle at an unprepared site.
VTOL desired — at objective area, 4000 density altitude, 95° day, 4500 pound payload.
Payload — 4500 pound (design), 10,000 pound (overload).
Combat Radius — 1000 NM, 100 to 500 foot altitude, 300 to 400 knots.
Self—deployment Range - 2400 NM, best cruise altitude/Mach.
Signatures - low to moderate

The first three months’ activity for the design study consisted of development of configurations that could satisfy the mission requirements. This portion of the study was intended to allow the maximum freedom to explore new methods to meet the mission. Working with a minimum number of constraints, a large variety of configurations were explored. Twelve concepts were presented during a Mid-Term presentation at LTV on 1 August 1991. Those preliminary configurations included
the following:


Model 208 Plenum fuselage, blown slot lip, tandem wing
Model 209 Advanced, two-rotor tiltwing
Model 212 Tandem stopped rotor, turbofan for cruise
Model 213 Single stopped rotor, turbofan for cruise
Model 215 Tandem wing, skirt for Super-STOL, rocket assist
Model 216 Tilt tri-rotor
Model 217 Counter-rotating rotor, tail sitter
Model 218 Dual aft rotor, tail sitter
Model 219 Single rotor, X-wing, tail sitter
Model 220 Dual rotor, tail sitter
Model 222 Direct lift engine turbofan
Model 223 Capsule-delivery/recovery turbofan

On 7 August 1991, LTV provided a downselect to six of the twelve configurations. Scaled responded with a second preliminary design study report including further refinement and performance estimates on the following six configurations:


Model 209 Advanced, two-rotor tiltwing
Model 213 Single, stopped rotor, turbofan for cruise
Model 215 Tandem wing, skirt for Super-STOL, rocket assist
Model 216 Tilt tri-rotor
Model 220 Dual rotor, tail sitter
Model 223 Capsule-delivery/recovery turbofan"


a reply to: MystikMushroom

This specifically talks about multi stage aircraft and I'm completely on-board with the multi craft idea with bits breaking off to perform different roles and functions.
I wouldnt be suprised if you couldnt project a plasma bloom/create a virtual plasma that mimics an aircraft/bird/flying horse both in terms of RCS, Infrared and Optical detection either on your craft or in the near distance.
You could probably have your "real" craft hiding amongst a pack of EM decoys!

Especially like the model 223 Description as it involves a mothership with spec ops "insertion pod"- You can count me out for this particular insertion BTW!!!

Capsule-delivery/recovery turbofan

The Model 223 system, illustrated in two separate three-views, (one for delivery and one for recovery) shows a different approach to the basic problem of sneaking in and sneaking out unobserved. Instead of attempting to hover and infil with the entire aircraft and the return fuel. Only the payload is delivered to the landing zone. The payload delivery system is different from a standard airdrop scenario, however. A large (approximately 4 foot deep) airbag shock attenuation system allows the payload capsule with six passengers to be dropped at a sink rate of approximately 50 feet per second while limiting the impact accelerations to less than l2Gs. This can be further reduced to approximately 9Gs using stroking seats. The high sink rate delivery allows the capsule to be targeted with precision similar to the precision delivery of a smart bomb. Position designators or GPS is used to provide a landing area reference and the descent parachute is steerable in any lateral direction in order to position the payload into a small area. The “bomber” comprises its low observable shape only for the extraction, then can orbit undetected or return for refueling during ground operations of the infil crew. For recovery, the ground crew deploys a lanyard with a helium balloon, similar to the C-130 rescue system developed for the Vietnam era personnel recovery system. The mother ship picks up the payload lanyard and hauls it onboard for the high altitude stealthy cruise home. Thus, only the payload plus approximately 2,000 pounds is delivered to the high intensity area."

Given that the above was all done in the late 80's early 90's and the (seemingly) limiting factor was the rotors- we must surely assume the Osprey isn't the best option today ...working on the assumption that this technology would have matured in the same way the F117 technology has been refined in the subsequent 30 years!! there could be an extremely interesting craft ( or more likely family of crafts) out there.

If you dig a bit further there seems to be some allusion to the replacement of rotors with EM generated thrust systems and although there is no proof of Biefield Brown type affects providing the required propulsion/ also strikes me that by reducing overall platform weight ( lets say make it half LTA ) most of the mission requirements could be fulfilled by just using colour changing skins in a conventional( by today's standards) stealthy shape.
edit on 8-1-2015 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 04:34 AM
Softa is interesting. Here's what I don't understand. Why put visible lights that can be seen from miles on the bottom of the craft, even in variable intensity, at night time ... to hide the shape of the craft. Who cares if you are hiding the shape of the craft thats intended to be stealthy by obscuring it with lights if you are going to broadcast that you are there to everyone with same said lights? I understand certain color lights or infrared lights to screw with cameras. I understand lights during the day time to blind the observer. But why something so blatantly obvious for night time? Why not just keep everything as dark as possible and just go with whatever technology they are using on all the other stuff to mess up the cameras and reduce visibility to the naked eye?

I like the prop driven idea as it's quieter than a jet (usually) and it leaves no contrails.

I wonder if they instead of using ducted fans they went with another form of propulsion that supplies lift, is quiet, and doesn't leave a contrail for some versions or designs of these type of crafts. My reasoning is because if you are going to deploy SF troops you would probably want to get them there quickly every now and then. Use stealth helicopters and EW utilizing stealthed out osprey like things for raids conducted by sf troops like in the osama raid. but develop a much faster stealthy insertion methods for when time is of the essence for the SF troops? Like a tool for quick reaction forces that need to get somewhere in the world and deployed in a hurry.

wonder if softa and senior citizen type tech has been around a lot longer and was utilized in other projects or classified operational craft?

posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 04:54 AM

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Why put visible lights that can be seen from miles on the bottom of the craft, even in variable intensity, at night time ... to hide the shape of the craft.

Is it something mundane like all planes (regardless of classified status) flown over American soil must display anti collision lights ( one smashes into a 747 over a baseball game and your black project is no longer black)?

I think the air forces favorite lucky photographer Steve Douglass said he saw what he thought might be anti collisions on his various sightings (need to fact check that...does anyone know if the B2 uses anti collisions over the US for e.g?)

Or is it that you are actually not just seeing a "light", it is in fact a retinal fingerprinting device used to identify eye witnesses later (I'm sure your friend and mine did say that lol).

As a quick sanity check to all of this- why- if you have any thing approaching this- wouldn't you use it for your most super secret mission (kill OBL) using your most super secret special forces team?

They seemed to be using a modified helicopter rotor as their super secret innovation....I do wonder.
edit on 8-1-2015 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 06:02 AM
If you want to hide a plane visually, without resorting to technology that can be hard to maintain in the field, you put lights on it. I've mentioned this several times. It was proven to work in WWII.

posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 07:41 AM
a reply to: aholic

Interesting read about your -47:

posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 09:44 AM
a reply to: Zaphod58

I get that during the daytime, it makes sense. The articles on softa say it had three large lights on the bottom that were used at night time to hide it's shape. That part I don't get. Why at night time. Anti collision lights I get. Using lights during the daytime to hide the shape I get. But not the night part. Other than that it's pretty cool.

Wonder how fast they can get these using props as described in the patent. And if the military at the time they designed these wasn't also looking for a high speed version of one of these to get SF troops around the world in a matter of hours for missions that require immediate quick on demand sort stuff.

Cause the softa doesn't look especially fast. Not that for most cases you would need it to be. But there has to be that transport niche to be filled for when speed is of the essence for SF troop insertion.

posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 09:59 AM
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Newer missiles use dual mode optical tracking and home on shape.

posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 10:13 AM
a reply to: Zaphod58

SO they are going to put three giant lights on the bottom of ALL stealth craft? The f-22, the f-35 the B2 the b3 and so on? They don't have something better to disrupt optical seeking missiles and hide the shape? Or is this just for planes that have a high likely hood of getting shot at? Seems like there's more to the three giant lights on the bottom of a craft story from my perspective.

Three giant lights will still be seen by people on the ground that can then go hey I saw the lights dip down in the field beyond the tree line. Sweet notify the despot and have a platoon of men walk a line through the insertion point and slaughter the troops staging there. Either way it would be a dead giveaway that the US deployed SF troops if the lights were ever spotted at night. Would make it easy to send a ton of soldiers out to where the thing was spotted and look for them or compromise them. Personally I would prefer all stealthed out with no lights and really ninja your way in.

Finally, I have a raging cold combined with an ear infection right now so sorry if I don't seem to be getting it or appear to be more mentally challenged than normal. And if my posts seem a little pissy right now. I think thats just me because I'm sick. my apologies to the ATS members if thats the case.
edit on 8-1-2015 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 10:25 AM
a reply to: BASSPLYR

And how are you planning to stealth the rotor blades required for a vertical landing? Or are you going to F-35 it and put a lift fan in? You have the same problem then though.

OK, we've established vertical landing and stealth don't work well together, so you have a stealthy STOL platform. Now you need a road, or long enough straight area to land on. How are you going to secure it before landing? Drop troops in? Why do you need the STOL platform if you can drop in?
edit on 1/8/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in