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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Since this thing can take off vertically, like a helicopter, does that mean that it can function in a combat role similar to a helicopter? And if yes, does that mean that its ability to also travel as a jet makes it less vulnerable to, say, insurgent attacks?




posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   
its doesn't travel as a jet its travels like a prop plane it is. Yes though when then plane is in plane "mode" it is much faster then current helocopters making it harder to it.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   
The first of four Ospreys was delivered to Kirtland AFB from Edwards AFB yesterday. The rest will follow soon. I look forward to seeing these over the skies of Albuquerque.

www.blackanthem.com...

www.dcmilitary.com...

www.abqtrib.com...







[edit on 2006/3/21 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Since this thing can take off vertically, like a helicopter, does that mean that it can function in a combat role similar to a helicopter? And if yes, does that mean that its ability to also travel as a jet makes it less vulnerable to, say, insurgent attacks?


Their primary advantage is that when in airplane mode, they travel over 200mph, but can go into areas that only helicopters can go into. This makes the response time faster, and their ability to avoid attacks better. The average transport helicopter travels at under 100mph.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
I wonder how many other aircraft have taken twenty years of development before the first combat ready model was delivered?



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Ever since Kelley Johnson retired, most of them do Grady. The F-22, the V-22, and several others have taken 15+ years to go from drawing board to active.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   
You're right and after I wrote that I thought that the helicopter had a much longer development. I also didn't realize how long working choppers had been with us, either.

www.helis.com...



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Cool, I like the Osprey



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:16 PM
link   
heres a cool picture of several Ospreys.





posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
There are several more pics similar to that one on the USS Bataan webpage in the photo gallery. Nice to see them actually on a ship at last.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Since this thing can take off vertically, like a helicopter, does that mean that it can function in a combat role similar to a helicopter? And if yes, does that mean that its ability to also travel as a jet makes it less vulnerable to, say, insurgent attacks?


It functions poorly as a helicopter and poorly as a propellor driven plane and costs more than both combined. It is also utterly incapable of defending itself or protecting it's occupants.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by orca71

Originally posted by Nygdan
Since this thing can take off vertically, like a helicopter, does that mean that it can function in a combat role similar to a helicopter? And if yes, does that mean that its ability to also travel as a jet makes it less vulnerable to, say, insurgent attacks?


It functions poorly as a helicopter and poorly as a propellor driven plane and costs more than both combined. It is also utterly incapable of defending itself or protecting it's occupants.


The Osprey is a POS, plain and simple. They are only safe when they are sitting on the ground. It's a great concept, and the system works fine on paper. However, I honestly beleive that many more Marines will die in Osprey crashes once these things fully enter service.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I'm going to hold off judgement until a few more years have passed.

The main reason this thing gets a really bad wrap is because of the crash that killed 17 people...But that was pilot error...which you can not blame on the aircraft.

Its a good concept, and now its in (low) production and going operational...It hasn't has a chance to prove you people right or wrong, its simply to soon to judge.

"flying over a jigsaw puzzle"



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
It's an ungainly looking aircraft, to be sure, but I believe that this is the future of the Corps. Every new system that the military embraces goes through the same period of naysaying and every system failure is seen as inevitable doom for that system. I think we would all do well to let this program run it's course. At this point, there's no turning back. As one Marine General said recently, it's the Marines that will make it work, not the engineers.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Their primary advantage is that when in airplane mode, they travel over 200mph, but can go into areas that only helicopters can go into.


Well even if it is double the speed of old transport methods that is still not fast imo and considering the cost i would rather have five times the airframes and fly them to forward stations where they can spend the day on alert waiting to jump on insurgents/whatevers. At their cost they can not land ANYWHERE near hostile fire so that is a additional few KM for troops to move towards engagement.


This makes the response time faster, and their ability to avoid attacks better. The average transport helicopter travels at under 100mph.


Response times might or might not be faster due to the fact that so many fewer units will be on call due to their high cost and probable low deployment numbers. Their ability to avoid attacks is probably less due to their size and their extra speed will not save them against any type of AA fire.

Anyways.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   
The osprey looks pretty good but is it that practical? , i heard that the marines were/are looking to deploy a new 120mm rifled mortar , but the hummer that would carry it cant fit in the osprey so the USMC was / is? considering a new version of the old M-151 Jeep! , thats no good if you have to rejig new systems because they wont fit , it could probably carry one under slung but then it would be slower than something like a h-92.

www.airforce-technology.com...

It may be unique but when you will have to spend time and effort (re)designing kit so that it can fit in its narrower hold theres no point just more expense.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   
It is hard to imagine enough of the things being built to even deploy one reinforced battallion of marines to someplace we need them right now. Perhaps they could be used to take out the nuke facilities in Iran if the need arose. It's probably just me, but I'm having a hard time grasping how and where the things can be used to advantage.



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
StellarX

I Few KMs = 2Km it means troops will arrive 20 minutes later than with a direct drop to target (tell me how many current helos can do an insertion to a AAA or SAM defended target?)

And when saying that speed doesn't increase survivability in AA fire, Have you ever tried firing any AA weapons to flying target, even .50cals? Most Close AA weapons are still manualy/electricaly targeted so speed gives an aircraft more protection.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
I Few KMs = 2Km it means troops will arrive 20 minutes later than with a direct drop to target (tell me how many current helos can do an insertion to a AAA or SAM defended target?)


If you need to get their pronto ( I know the US army dont care about that anymore, but still ) you HAVE to risk assets to do so and this platform can not be risked in the same way other helo's were. Fact is after 2 km in 20 minutes with equipment the troops are not going to feel the same and 2km is still pretty damn close for such a beast.


And when saying that speed doesn't increase survivability in AA fire, Have you ever tried firing any AA weapons to flying target, even .50cals?


I am saying that bit of speed will not increase survivability against Manpads or anything radar guided thus it's perfectly useless for close insertion against anything but 'insurgents' who don't want to hold the ground anyways.


Most Close AA weapons are still manualy/electricaly targeted so speed gives an aircraft more protection.


Define 'more' in terms of a percentage and then tell me if that speed advantage is worth the added cost and risk profile of carrying that many things that can/will bleed/die.

Stellar



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Manpads require a visual lockon, in order to hit with an Infantry SAM you need to "follow" the target, There's quite a difference in following a helo going 250Km/h and an Osprey going 425 Km/h

True that Radar SAMs can hit Osprey easily, but they can allso hit other helos ass well.

I do think that "hot" insertions are mad with current AA weapons and such ops should be done with fast armoured vehicles.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join