It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Marines to deploy the Osprey tilt rotor into combat within a year.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   
news.yahoo.com...


RALEIGH, N.C. - The Marine Corps plans to send the troubled Osprey aircraft into combat zones within a year and is activating a squadron of the tilt-rotor planes this week.

Obviously, due to operational concerns we don't want to tell exactly when they will deploy," said spokesman Master Sgt. Phil Mehringer at Marine Corps Air Station New River, where the squadron will be based. "But it's certainly going to happen in the near future. Definitely, within a year."

The Osprey, which takes off and lands like a helicopter and flies like an airplane, had a troubled start.

Four Marines died in a 2000 crash in North Carolina that was caused by a ruptured titanium hydraulic line. Nineteen others were killed in a crash that year in Arizona that investigators blamed on pilot error.

The Pentagon approved full production of the Osprey in a $19 billion program last year, and the Marines have been showing them off. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld flew aboard one last week.


Think its a good idea to send them into combat? None of them have crashed recently. Need more tests? If the Ospreys crash more than usual in combat in non-hostile situations, then no doubt the aircraft will be pulled out. Money wasted.




posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
It's already undergone 20 years of testing. (slight exageration). The number of total accidents isn't THAT bad, it's just the fact that they carry so many people, and had one or two bad crashes when they were loaded.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Another discussion on the same topic...

www.abovetopsecret.com...'



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Think its a good idea to send them into combat? None of them have crashed recently. Need more tests?


It's a stupid design that places too many restrictions on the pilot ... not what you want in a combat situation. Very nice engines though.



Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2006-4-2 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   
So you'd rather have them keep flying the CH-53, which barely stays in the air, or the Chinooks which are so slow and vulnerable it's not even funny?



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I personally believe that tilting-wings makes much more sense. This program should have been scrapped in favor of the better, simpler solution.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   
good move, its about time those things get into service, and I think they will do a good job. and hope they will, considering how long and much money it took to get them where there at today.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Yeah this aircraft is where its at! about time the got this smoothie into service and get rid of the Chinook and stallions for troop drop offs. Ever ridden long range in a chinook or any helicopter? its murder on the arse and ears, and sat in silence for hours because of the noise and ear plugs is no happy way to start a day.

Hope this finds its way into service in the UK some how, as i'd love to see it up close.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So you'd rather have them keep flying the CH-53, which barely stays in the air, or the Chinooks which are so slow and vulnerable it's not even funny?


Since when does the CH-53 "barely" stay in the air? Chinooks are slow, but the V-22 is only faster at cruise. Additionally, the V-22 has crappy load carrying charactersistics and because of its little over-loaded tilting rotors has to flown with extreme caution when landing, taking off, and transitioning to cruise. Its a stupid design. A real waste of wonderful engines.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   
orca is the Osprey that hard to fly? Im amazed if it is. Pilots usually vote with their feet if they don't like a craft. When Phantom pilots faced tornados they voted and left in droves to civ airlines. If it is that bad just how did the osprey get into service? Or am i not going to like the answer to that? lol.

I just love the idea of the v-22 thats all.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
For what it's worth:

I used to live near Kirtland AFB where the AF special forces are trained. Apparently they will be using the Osprey soon - I observed quite a few in my last few months there.

My real estate agent's husband worked with the special forces. According to her, her husband and most of his colleagues were very, very reluctant to train in the thing and were doing what Greebo talks about - walking out when they were assigned to units being trained in the Osprey.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Wow chemical thats interesting. I guess the 22's not all its cracked up to be then. If SF forces walked, then some thing must really be wrong with it.

Thanks for the post
and thats a way cool avatar!



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by orca71
Since when does the CH-53 "barely" stay in the air? Chinooks are slow, but the V-22 is only faster at cruise. Additionally, the V-22 has crappy load carrying charactersistics and because of its little over-loaded tilting rotors has to flown with extreme caution when landing, taking off, and transitioning to cruise. Its a stupid design. A real waste of wonderful engines.


Yeah, you're right. The CH-53 flight to maintenance ratio is GREAT. I mean having to do 44 man hours of maintenance for every flight hour is a great ratio. We used to have them out here, and they were ALWAYS down for maintenance.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   
lol 44 hrs on the ground for one in the air... oh thats a great piece of kit that is...Not!



if the 22 is so poor, theres going to be alot of red faces / dead faces around once it starts to be used in combat.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by orca71
Since when does the CH-53 "barely" stay in the air? Chinooks are slow, but the V-22 is only faster at cruise. Additionally, the V-22 has crappy load carrying charactersistics and because of its little over-loaded tilting rotors has to flown with extreme caution when landing, taking off, and transitioning to cruise. Its a stupid design. A real waste of wonderful engines.


Yeah, you're right. The CH-53 flight to maintenance ratio is GREAT. I mean having to do 44 man hours of maintenance for every flight hour is a great ratio. We used to have them out here, and they were ALWAYS down for maintenance.


Ah, maintenance. I thought by saying the CH-53 barely stayed in the air it was meant literally. I find it hard to imagine the V-22 will be a star in the maintenance department.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I'm not sure of the maintenence ratio on the V-22...But I'm sure is a lot better then the Chinook.

Also...the bad crash that killed the 19 people inside it...was pilot error, its decend rate is 800 fpm (feet per minute), and he went 1000 fpm...So you cant really blame that on a bad aircraft. As for the most recent crash in Dec. 2000, a hydrualic line burst, which has been redesigned.

I like the Osprey because it can do a lot more then the Chinooks, like fly at 25,000 ft, or go 400+ mph.

Oh...and while on the topic, The V-44 (which is currently a concept) should not even be though about being made until at least a few years of the Osprey being operational.(I like its concept though)



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
I'm not sure of the maintenence ratio on the V-22...But I'm sure is a lot better then the Chinook.

Also...the bad crash that killed the 19 people inside it...was pilot error, its decend rate is 800 fpm (feet per minute), and he went 1000 fpm...So you cant really blame that on a bad aircraft. As for the most recent crash in Dec. 2000, a hydrualic line burst, which has been redesigned.

I like the Osprey because it can do a lot more then the Chinooks, like fly at 25,000 ft, or go 400+ mph.

Oh...and while on the topic, The V-44 (which is currently a concept) should not even be though about being made until at least a few years of the Osprey being operational.(I like its concept though)


There's nothing to indicate the V-22 will have a better maintenance record that the Chinook.

As for it's poor take off and landing characteristics, it places so many restrictions on the pilot that it can significantly increase the chance of pilot error in real combat scenarios. In combat situations, flying at 25,000 feet or 300 mph are far less important than being able to land and take-off quickly and safely. It's a stupid design.

The so-called "V-44" has 4 rotors but if it cant perform an emergency landing using two opposing rotors its a stupid design as well.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   
I hope Marines are not planing to use Osprey in "hot" landings since it's size and slowish decend rate make it a easy picking for any AA weapons right from 12.7 NSVT.... (as stated by a 2nd Lt from AA-gun battery)



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   
i love the look of them, apparently there is going to be one at the RAF cosford air show this year.

i have flown one on a few "real" simulators, taking off is easy, flying is easy, but like you have all stated, the transition from heli-mode to fixed-wing can cause it to flip over if its not done right.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
Primal deaf you the man!


Im going to take cosford week off and go have a look at the Osprey- Cheers for the heads up about that. nice one. I just want to know what its take off and landing is like, because I have been in helicopters on exercises where take off was fast and low - can the osprey react that fast or not?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join