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.
Originally posted by northwolf
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.
Originally posted by orca71
As for it's poor take off and landing characteristics ...
Originally posted by ch1466
Only an idiot employs a plane like a helicopter.
Originally posted by orca71
As for it's poor take off and landing characteristics ...
Originally posted by sardion2000
why did you guys go with a tilt rotor versus a tilt wing?
Originally posted by FlyersFan
I am on the program, myself. The principal object of the V22 was to be a solution to the fixed wing aircraft. The V22 solves the problem of landing and taking off wherre runways are not available. This platform was never intended to be a solution for other helicopters, as many people seemed to think.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
The V22, if you've ever seen it fly or it's performance characteristics, shows that it significantly outperforms helicopters as well as fixed wing aircraft.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
It's not a plane. It's not a combat offensive platform.
It's a transport helicopter that was designed to replace
CH46 Seaknight. It's a cargo helicopter for cargo and
troop movement with defensive capabilities. It isn't
for offensive. That's why we have other aircraft for.
Originally posted by simtek 22
I am not trying to pick a fight, it's just that while working on the V-22, I found a lot of people who were against the program due to the problems from the past. The aircraft has had some bad publicity from the past, but all the problems have been fixed.
Originally posted by HenryHenry
Lie. The Osprey was always intended to be used for infiltration and exfiltration in hot zones, a task it is not suited for.
More lies. I will comment on the ridiculous claim that it significantly outperforms a helicopter.
The V-22 may look impressive when compared to the much smaller and older CH-46, but that is not a valid comparison. The only aircraft you can compare the V-22 to is the CH-53.
If you are who you say you are, then you know this damn well.
Why do you lie?
Originally posted by FlyersFan
My husband will respond once to the obnoxious newbie troll -
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Lie? Actually, no. I have the data books to prove it. However, it is also intended, like you stated, to be used for insertion and extraction. Again, this supports my original statement of the platform not be used as an offensive weapon.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Unless you're looking at a different performance handbook than I am (dated July of 2001, published by the manufacturer with the Government's approval) I'd say your statement has no basis of fact. Enough said on this topic...let's move on.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Actually the V22 is a better comparison to the HH-60.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
I don't appreciate your hostile attitude here. It's uncalled for. I am providing the readers of this forum some additional information from someone that has first-hand knowledge of the aircraft.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Frankly, I don't really care wheter you believe me or not. Each aircraft that you have cited performance facts for, are basically acurate. That's fine.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
One thing that should be considered is what is the government's mission need that is desired to be achieved? If the Govt could have solved their mission needs with the current inventory of helicopters and other warfighters, then I am sure they never would have made it through the Senate Appropriation Committee to pursue an expensive investment.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Well, that's all the diatribe for today. I'm going back to my senseless TV show cuz at least I can turn that off. have a nice day.
Originally posted by FlyersFan
Side note from FlyersFan ... henryhenry .. you have SERIOUS paranoia
issues. You are here 24 hours and you are throwing 'liar liar' around
and questioning polite and informative posters about their professed
livelyhoods. Get thyself to a psychologist ... fast.
Originally posted by Bad Dog
Okay ... I signed up.
This is me ... Bad Dog. FlyerFan's husband.
Posts may be directed to me .. not my wife.
Thanx.
Originally posted by Bad Dog
Okay ... I signed up.
This is me ... Bad Dog. FlyerFan's husband.
Posts may be directed to me .. not my wife.
Thanx.
Originally posted by simtek 22
Originally posted by orca71
As for it's poor take off and landing characteristics ...
What are you talking about with the poor landing and takeoff characteristics. I found helicopters much more difficult to land than the V-22, and as for takeoffs, you just advance the power control lever (throttle by any other name) and its off you go, or, if you desire, you can do a rolling takeoff by rotating the engines forward (10 to 15 degrees) and applying power.
I would like to know about your experiences with the V-22. Have you ever worked with them? You seem to have a lot to say on the subject but where are you getting your information? There hasn't been any major problems with the V-22 in several years. They are slowly evolving into a well honed weapons platform. Why else would the US Military be putting so much money into the program if the program had serious problems. There are several advantages of using a tilt rotors over a helicopter in combat ops.
I am not trying to pick a fight, it's just that while working on the V-22, I found a lot of people who were against the program due to the problems from the past. The aircraft has had some bad publicity from the past, but all the problems have been fixed.
BTW- I work on simulators for the Air Force, not that I have really flow the real aircraft. I found learning to fly the CV-22 (simulator) pretty easy, and I don't even have any pilot training. Sorry if I seem a little touchy.
Originally posted by orca71
As for flight simulators, they are just glorified video games.
Originally posted by jra
Originally posted by orca71
As for flight simulators, they are just glorified video games.
Sure they arn't 100% accurate, but saying they are "just glorified video games" seems rather silly. Seeing as how they are used for training real pilots, they are definately advanced and accurate enough I would think.
Originally posted by orca71
Henry addressed each of your misleading statements rather well. Unlike Henry, I have no attachment to the V-22 or it's crippled design.
The V22, if you've ever seen it fly or it's performance characteristics, shows that it significantly outperforms helicopters as well as fixed wing aircraft.
Originally posted by HenryHenry
Well, I'm glad I won't be anywhere near one when it suffers an "engine" failure or hostile fire on the way in.
Originally posted by simtek 22
I hope that you arent implying that the V-22 cant operate on one engine. Just because the engines are mounted on the wings, that does not mean that they are directly driving the prop-rotors. The aircraft utilizes a gearbox/transmission drive system that will allow the aircraft to fly with one engine out. If damaged in combat, the V-22 can still land like an aircraft in emergencies. The prop-rotors are designed to disintegrate upon impact with the ground. [/QUOTE]
I hope you arent implying the V-22 can survive an engine failure in hover mode. It will fall like a brick (almost) almost certainly killing everyone on board.
Nice try though.
[QUOTE]
As for the slam on simulations that have been made, if they are such "glorified video games" why would the military spend so much money on the development of the simulators. When I was at Kirtland, we were constantly getting updates refining the software math models for the trainers. The flight test crews were constantly flying our devices to test out performance characterstics before trying them out in the real aircraft. They would then update the trainer whenever necessary.
[/QUOTE]
What youre describing is no different from dozens of video games that undergo the same process. They gather data, create a model and dynamics simulation in software, then update to ensure "accuracy".
[QUOTE]I have worked in military simulation since the mid 80's and the devices I have worked on have trained hundreds of pilots. They arent "video games" or toys, they have real world applications and we can train pilots on complex and dangerous situations that they may encounter.[/QUOTE]
You can use a simulator to train a pilot for complex or dangerous combat situations (as many video game players do on a daily basis), but you cant use the simulator to discover the limits of an aircraft's flight envelope or any of it's real world dynamic characteristics. In case you didnt realize, the Matrix was just a movie.
[QUOTE]
HeneryHenery - The quirk you talk about is called vortex ring state(VRS). This problem is what caused the Yuma crash, that and pilot error. The flight control software has been corrected to prevent this from happening again. [/QUOTE]
Rubbish. It wasnt a software error that needed "correcting" that caused the crash but fundamental flaws in the aircraft's design. What they did wasnt "correct" the software but rather alter it so that it constantly monitors the pilots actions and limits the pilot's control so that he cant exceed the aircraft's rather low safety threshhold.
[QUOTE]The other crashes were due to mechanical failures. Most aircraft go thru this type of trial and error testing. What other problems with the aircraft are you referring to with the all technical defects comments. I was only aware of the problem with VRS.
One of the advantages you left out is range. Air refuelings are also not as demanding as in a helicopter.
When I talk about weapons platform, I cover a lot of ground. Just because a aircraft is unarmed, that does not mean its not a weapons platform. A weapons platform can be used to deploy various devices to destroy or overwhelm an enemy. In the Osprey's case, its either Marines or SOF teams.[/QUOTE]
If being armed and armored arent requirements for qualifying as a weapons platform, then by your logic a paratrooper is a weapon and a parachute is a weapons platform.