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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   
What I still dont get is why they designed the cargo section so small that NONE of the current vehicles (US and foreign, armored or not) fit in - > that led to that funny expensive retooled jeep ...



They only had to make that cargo section 2 or three inches wider and higher... and then they could also use vehicles with a ROOF, or seats for 4+ persons, or actual armor...

[edit on 28/2/2006 by Lonestar24]




posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24
What I still dont get is why they designed the cargo section so small that NONE of the current vehicles (US and foreign, armored or not) fit in

The Marines RST-V Shadow does fit in it, which it was designed for...the vehicle lowers to minimize its size, then it can fit in it.




posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 10:08 AM
link   
None of them have crased recently... get my point...
... I look forward to see what the V-22 has to give to the marines... It would be great in commado operations... but look at the rotors, aren't they HUGE...



[edit on 28-2-2006 by Figher Master FIN]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

Originally posted by Lonestar24
What I still dont get is why they designed the cargo section so small that NONE of the current vehicles (US and foreign, armored or not) fit in

The Marines RST-V Shadow does fit in it, which it was designed for...the vehicle lowers to minimize its size, then it can fit in it.



Looks like it was made using scrap metal but the drive-train is quite good. Also, it not only lowers but also the wheels are drawn in towards the centerline to make the vehicle narrower. The ability to move the wheels in and out sideways enables it to have a wide foot-print while on the go for stability and maneuverability while being compatible with narrow cargo holds.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

Originally posted by Lonestar24
What I still dont get is why they designed the cargo section so small that NONE of the current vehicles (US and foreign, armored or not) fit in

The Marines RST-V Shadow does fit in it, which it was designed for...the vehicle lowers to minimize its size, then it can fit in it.
...


... which is not a current vehicle (still evaluated)



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   
While the concept of the Osprey is a good one, I'd rather swim in full combat gear to a combat zone than flown in this folly of an aircraft.

I believe replacing the rotaors with turbo-fans would fare better than the transport they have now.

I say it's time to give it up. Just think. If one engine were to malfunction on approach to an LZ, that would be just a waste of life on all the soldiers or Marines on board.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Only an idiot employs a plane like a helicopter.

That IS 'stupid by design'. As doctrine not engineering.

The thing about the Osprey is twofold:

1. You cannot guarantee the viability of STOM ops within 100nm of shore against a modern AShM threat. Even against PCI speed boat shooters, you often don't want to let the enemy SEE YOU SITTING THERE like a git as you spool up.

The farther you go, the larger your cycle interval becomes and the _shorter_ your 'air day' (ops between standdowns for maintenance) gets in terms of the things you can do.

Unless you increase speed.

2. Even inshore, the depth of field (think beyond the beach!) that you can address is OPENED by the fact that, not only do you have the range of the tilt rotor. But you can deplane everything from ATV and Gators to the Shadow and _drive to the sound of gunfire_, at need.

Now, look at DS. Look at Kosovo. See the difference?

DS was a SOCOM war because they were the only units we /could/ field deep enough in to do the road watch and 'engagement' mission. Yet that was a freakin' desert 500 miles across. And when our people got into trouble (boy, goats, oops.) we often ended up having one helluva footrace between the SWO daddies holding off the barbarians /inside their camp/.

And the UH-60's sent to pluck them up (Pavehawk gets shot to hell trying to thread the needle between power lines and red forces, only an F-16 with CBU's prevents 'farm tractor overrun').

The Balkans are different yet again because they are fairly densely populated and the terrain elevations are such that if you can't go 'up and over' you WILL fly right down the throat of a couple 'accepted' ingress paths (one of the reasons we lost so many damn UAVs).

Now.

Put a vehicle in that situation. Make it a vehicle with a trailer. Make it a pair of vehicles for security and two trailers so that they can haul their scout-air as well as their _OTH_ fires with them.

With three TR's and maybe ten men commited (exactly what the Prez wants to hear. Terrible news for the 'everyman a rifleman' /backwardly ignorant/) you now have the ability to set down were you like. Drive where you NEED to and _never once_ put your dustoff or your RAP (Recce Attack Platoon as a play on the old 'Rat') Patrol in jeopardy.

THAT is modern Air Mech.

THAT is what makes the difference between being hosed and being dominant.

By contempt of engagement with a foe that never gets a chance to 'stumble on you', in a way that leads to confrontation.

That never gets to /overrun you/ because you are capable of 60-70mph too.

But it is also the notion that now they cannot hide from you. Because there is no place or time 'between raids' when they and their whole backfield is not visible to your scout's eyes.

Such is incredibly important in an era where smarter and smarter unattended sensors, mines and OTH (Mortar etc.) system is posing a sure and certain risk to direct manned penetration.

FOUR LAWS OF FIREPOWER:
SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT
If it ain't light enough to carry enough to kill'em all, it's time to drive.
MASS FIRES NOT FORCES
Standoff Rules The Battlefield. Death to the morons who though 3,305 downed Hueys marked the 'proper way' to do Air Mobile in SEA. Drive until you can shoot but make sure you can shoot a helluva lot further than you need to drive.
MANEUVER TO TARGET NOT ENGAGE
Don't come creepsy traipsing up to 'secure the building and peek inside'. Because that is SO damn predictable as a counter-force trap. If you can SEE the target you want exit or enter said building. You then have the option of blasting him into gumbo as he gets into his black SUV. Or leveling his hovel around his ears, at your discretion. But you have to keep YOU safe first. And that means sending in something, not someone, to do the onsite search.
NEVER ASSOCIATE FIRES WITH TARGETING
Light Also Wins the economic game of how-many-do-we-buy. And there is no reason not to take advantage of the blue suit community's 10,000ft logistic superiorities when it comes time to drop on X. So WHY pay for a man or a machine to act as both kill mechanism and pathfinder to cue it?


CONCLUSION:
I would be the first to agree that the V-22 came in too small as a function of being a cheapass (Marine, bottom of the food chain) replacement for the CH-46 rather than the CH-53.

But it can still perform Air Mech. And it can still save it's 60 million dollar sticker shock from the perils of 'combat' by doing so.

Don't throw out the tilting baby until you have a hybrid/compound replacement swimming in his bathwater.

Because unlike the 'defensive' Euros we have to go places to get in our fights. And because, by now, we should have learned better than to watch old Vietnam newsreels of Huey Into Elephant Grass schlockmeister doctrine as to what as much as how we want to do things when we get there.

I myself, despising the JSF as much as I do, am more interested in seeing a combination of UCAVs, deployable UAV gunships and a 300 knot replacement for the AH-1W to /escort/ the tiltrotor (securing the LZ) as I am any notion of quadrotors or penny-farthing replacements to the only 270 knot platform we have.

Don't step back in time please. We shouldn't have learn the doctrinal mistakes of the past more than once.


KPl.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
While the concept of the Osprey is a good one, I'd rather swim in full combat gear to a combat zone than flown in this folly of an aircraft.

I believe replacing the rotaors with turbo-fans would fare better than the transport they have now.

I say it's time to give it up. Just think. If one engine were to malfunction on approach to an LZ, that would be just a waste of life on all the soldiers or Marines on board.


The Osprey is even dangerous while on the ground. An Osprey parked on a ship deck with it's rotors spinning responded to the turbulence of an approaching CH-46 by performing a roll!



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
The Osprey has been in development for at least twenty years. If the Marine Corps didn't have faith in its capabilities, it would not be where it is today. It's fine for everyone to speculate here on the board, but it's the Corps that will make this beast work, not those of us who watch from the bleachers.

[edit on 2006/3/5 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The osprey has been in development for at least twenty years. If the Marine Corps didn't have faith in its capabilities, it would not be where it is today. It's fine for everyone to speculate here on the board, but it's the Corps that will make this beast work, not those of us who watch from the bleachers.


It's not speculation that its stupid design and the example of what happened on the ship deck should make it obvious.

Fact is, the Marines Corps dont know good rotorcraft design any more than Reagan new about "Star Wars". How much money and years went into Star Wars?



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Do you have some source for that incident that we can read for ourselves or was this something you witnessed yourself?



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Do you have some source for that incident that we can read for ourselves or was this something you witnessed yourself?


It should be available on a google search.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   
This is the most recent reference that I can find to the problem you cite. I suggest you read it.


In the course of shipboard testing in 1999, the V-22 demonstrated a tendency to tilt along its lateral axis when sitting on the flight deck behind a hovering aircraft - a phenomenon known as "uncommanded roll-on-deck." Because the Osprey has a digital flight control system, engineers are able to reprogram the flight controls to eliminate undesirable characteristics such as roll-on-deck. Previous shipboard suitability phases have tested the performance of the Osprey behind a hovering H-1, H-46, and H-53. Phase IVB was designed to test the effect on a V-22 behind a hovering V-22.

"All of our test results with regard to roll on deck were as good as or better than anticipated," said Marine Corps. Lt. Col. Kevin Gross, government flight test director and chief V-22 test pilot. "The handling of the Osprey in the shipboard environment is proving to be one of its strong characteristics."

www.dcmilitary.com



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
This is the most recent reference that I can find to the problem you cite. I suggest you read it.


In the course of shipboard testing in 1999, the V-22 demonstrated a tendency to tilt along its lateral axis when sitting on the flight deck behind a hovering aircraft - a phenomenon known as "uncommanded roll-on-deck." Because the Osprey has a digital flight control system, engineers are able to reprogram the flight controls to eliminate undesirable characteristics such as roll-on-deck. Previous shipboard suitability phases have tested the performance of the Osprey behind a hovering H-1, H-46, and H-53. Phase IVB was designed to test the effect on a V-22 behind a hovering V-22.

"All of our test results with regard to roll on deck were as good as or better than anticipated," said Marine Corps. Lt. Col. Kevin Gross, government flight test director and chief V-22 test pilot. "The handling of the Osprey in the shipboard environment is proving to be one of its strong characteristics."

www.dcmilitary.com


Surely you can tell the difference between marketing hocus pocus and reality.

You cant reprogram the laws of physics. What you can do is attempt some kind of electronic intervention and hope the roll sensors will automatically adjust the propellor pitch if there's is a roll moment without corresponding control input. Basically what they are talking about is like sticking a bandaid on a malignant mole.

In fact, they havent even confirmed that they have got this bandaid to stick. They merely claim that it can be done and proclaim it as a success. Nothing new. We heard similar crap regarding it's inability to demonstrate a safe autorotation landing.

The fundamental problem with the V-22 is its trying to lift too much weight (48,000lbs) with two small rotors that are spaced too far apart from, and not high enough above, the concentrated mass of the main chassis.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by orca71
The fundamental problem with the V-22 is its trying to lift too much weight (48,000lbs) with two small rotors that are spaced too far apart from, and not high enough above, the concentrated mass of the main chassis.


Well, what do I know? I never would have believed that sixteen B-25 bombers could have taken off from an aircraft carrier.



When it's all said and done you should be a shoo-in for a job a Boeing.




[edit on 2006/3/5 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by orca71
The fundamental problem with the V-22 is its trying to lift too much weight (48,000lbs) with two small rotors that are spaced too far apart from, and not high enough above, the concentrated mass of the main chassis.


Well, what do I know? I never would have believed that sixteen B-25 bombers could have taken off from an aircraft carrier.

[edit on 2006/3/5 by GradyPhilpott]


Unfortunately, the issue with the V-22 is not a question of if it can take off but of how it will land.


As for Boeing, it's amazing to me that the same company that came up with timeless classics like the 747 tossed us a stinker like the V-22 that takes rotorcraft performance and safety back to the dark ages. The only saving grace for Boeing is that Bell Helicopter is as much or more to blame.

You can read up on some of their nonsense claims here:
www.boeing.com...



[edit on 5-3-2006 by orca71]



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Well, what do I know? I never would have believed that sixteen B-25 bombers could have taken off from an aircraft carrier.




[edit on 2006/3/5 by GradyPhilpott]


neither did the pilots who were selected for the raid over tokyo. but they also trained and had the engines at full throttle before they released the brakes.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I've had my own doubts about the Osprey ever since I began seeing the ads in the veterans' magazines way back in the eighties. The string of crashes has not help that view very much, at all, and I have heard that landing one vertically takes incredible skill.

However, I have faith in the Corps and I understand that this is revolutionary technology and that it will not be perfected quickly. I have often thought that the pilots who could fly the thing have not yet been born. Now, however, we see that there is now an operational squadron of MV-22's ready to fly.

Personally, I wish the "Imperial Battle Frog" (CH-46) could fly forever. I've had few experiences in my life that have been as exhilarating as my flights in the Sea Knight, especially in Vietnam. Those nose-down, tail-up take-offs from the sides of hills were just plain fun, if a little painful, at times.


“This technology will have inestimable value to future presidents of the United States,” said Gen. Robert Magnus, the assistant commandant of the Marine Corps. “The price is very high for being slow; the price is very high for being poorly equipped, for not having enough combat power.”

“What you are looking at here is the future of the Marine Corps,” he said. “And it’s not the aircraft. It’s the Marines. It’s the Marines, stupid.”

www.newbernsj.com


[edit on 2006/3/5 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 04:28 AM
link   
I really like the concept of the tilt rotor because of the increased range & speed it affords, but the engineering seems to be a little lacking. I'll worry about these birds in combat because of the complexity of the drive train needed to keep the two engines lifting at the same rate. Even a slight difference in lift capability side to side could spell disaster during the critical takeoff & landing phases of flight. If they can armor the engines & drive train enough though (and still be able to carry a full combat load) a lot of my concern would go away. I would still like to see that dang engine to engine drive shaft done away with though.

Eventually, I expect to see this concept implemented with four engines instead of two because the stability problem would be mitigated to some extent. Imagine if you will, a lenghtened Osprey with dual wings and a fatter body & you'll get the gist of what I'm thinking. Of course the engines, etc. could be made smaller so the overall aircraft doesn't get too large for tactical ops.

[edit on 6-3-2006 by Astronomer68]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Well since we are debating the pros and cons etc of the MV-22 I've held off from commenting till now.
Here is an artical please read.
pma275.navair.navy.mil...
Here are some of the more important parts of the artical that I'll point out. taken from subjects you guys have been talking about.

"Four or five years ago, no top-level Navy leaders were riding in the
Osprey, after it was grounded in 2000 because of fatal accidents.
But since then, the Osprey was re-engineered to prevent ruptures in its
high-pressure hydraulic system. And its flight protocols were re-written
to warn pilots not to descend too fast in helicopter mode, so as to
avoid a potentially deadly ring vortex state, where the rotors lose
their purchase on the air and the aircraft plunges earthward"

so they acknowledge the fact that they ran into problems but what they dont say is what "too fast" is. Next.

“Now I don't know what it was like in the original version” of the
Osprey, Winter said. “I never flew in the original version.

“But I have flown in the new version. I flew in the jump seat. I watched
the pilot workload” and other matters, he said.

Winter also said he told the crew to push the Osprey and show him what
it could do, simulating a rapid insertion and extraction mission.

So whats he saying? Well i gather that the new version is better then the old that problems have been fixed and that he told them to push that plane and do a rapid or hot extraction mission. Well he says it agile too. hmmm if can proform i say i have every faith in the crops assement.

This, he said, is clearly a “capable” platform.
And i agree with him




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join