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.


Woohoo Special Ops Osprey CV-22.

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 10:13 AM

3/21/2006 - KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. (AFPN) -- A new chapter in Air Force aviation opened March 20 as the first operational CV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft arrived here.

The aircraft was flown from the test wing at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., by Lt. Gen. Michael W. Wooley, commander of Air Force Special Operations Command, to the 58th Special Operations Wing at Kirtland. The 58th provides advanced training to special operations pilots and aircrews.

The CV-22 Osprey is a special operations variant of the MV-22, currently used by the Marines. The aircraft has the unique ability to takeoff, land and hover like a helicopter, and it can tilt its propellers to fly like a conventional, prop-driven aircraft.

"The CV-22 has the capability to fly at turboprop speeds like a C-130 (Hercules), pull into helicopter mode and land like an MH-53J/M Pave Low," General Wooley said. "This is truly transformational for Air Force Special Operations Command."

This dual capability gives the CV-22 extended range, speed and versatility over any other AFSOC aircraft. The extended range and speed will allow the Air Force to conduct long-range infiltration and exfiltration missions. The CV-22 and MV-22 are very similar, with differences existing mainly in the avionics needed for special operations missions.

external image

The link also has other images of the aircraft as well as a video of the Spec Ops Osprey. Doesn't it look awesome!!!!

[edit on 24-3-2006 by Nygdan]

posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 03:57 PM
Somehow, when I see the adaptable wing of the Osprey and the technology that could revolutionize air travel, I am stumped when I don't see plans for the technology to be licensed to private companies.

Now, I know there are complex systems involved in making this platform work. I understand that national security issues arise when the rights to replicate this flight technology is approached.

Even still, what a day we'd have when airline companies could offer cheaper solutions to the traditional airport with a long runway in regional markets. Short to mid-range flights could be covered. And undoubtedly with further advancements in fuel efficient designs, these types of craft could solve a lot of the fuel consumption issues the country faces. Could possibly open new markets. The domino effect of offering this technology faster could provide solutions for areas of the economy that involve trucking, passenger airlines, remote forest fire fighting....the list goes on.

And as far as a national security issue is concerned, creating more jobs and more opportunity for businesses is directly tied to our overall security.

All in all, bully to the engineers and military personnel who have fought to keep this concept alive. It will certain be instrumental in keeping our troops alive in the future. Always a good thing.


posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 06:33 PM
Does this mean you haven't heard of the BA609?

This has been on the go for years and various firms have been trying to get such programmes launched for at least 40 years, there is even one in Europe now, the Eurofar, but this one shown here has actually flown.

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 01:20 AM

Pretty Neat Lookin'.

From a modeler's perspective, it's upper surface camo is a very dark, blueish, color whose intensity is seemingly at odds with the traditional 'gunship' grey of 36118, and perhaps more indicative of AMC Proud Grey 36173. While the bottom color looks a little dull to be 36495 and could instead be 36375.

I still like the 'Reflective Raptor' (topcoat) style camo applied to some MV-22s during flight test for looks but it may be that this scheme's overall specular 'flash value' is just too high, especially for mixed day/night ops at lower penetration levels.

Also note the cylindrical containers for the AAQ-24 very ostentatiously mounted on the rear fuselage by the cargo doors. While an obvious acknowledgement of the 'not your daddy's SA-7' threat environment; this also bespeaks a fairly mild airflow region around the ramp which is unusual (both the C-130 and the MH-53 have rather 'aggressive aerodynamics' here and the latter actually has straighteners fitted...). It /may/ also pose some clearance issues for troops deplaning (though obviously you are not coming forward into vertical nacelle regions).

Taken together with the fuselage planing angle, sponson/gear masking issues and the obvious engine plume angle and blindzone potential, could make for interesting DIRCM performance 'sectoring' at low level on or around an LZ threatened by FQ shoulder weapons.

Perhaps the greatest question for me however arises from the seeming absence of an IFR probe. I suppose it could be bolton (the Marine versions probe would be visible from this view) but it's absence, along with roughly similar (vice 'wider' as originally proposed) gear sponsons in comparison to the MV-22-

All make it rather hard to believe that the aircraft will make the 700nm leveraged combat radius originally proposed for the CV-22. Even if they fit a bladder tank.

Is this the USAF way of admitting that the HC-130 'half way there' drag mission is just not viable anymore? Or is there simply something bigger underneath the floor or outboard in the wings?

Lastly, I do -so wish- the CMICs would learn what they are talking about before they make /stupid/ comments like 'pull to a hover and land like an MH-53J/M'. Because first off, the USAF Pave _Pig_ is known as such because, in addition to it's pronounced proboscis; it is notoriously 2-engine shy on horsepower. OTOH, 'when nobody's looking' CH-53E pilots have been known to stand their birds on their tails to make a tight LZ 'under fire' scenario happen from a very rapid ingress/short LOS environment.

The V-22 is not that kind of aircraft. Nor should it be assumed to NEED to be so **as long as you can DRIVE to the sound of gunfire**. In a 100,000 dollar jeep rather than a 60 million dollar airframe. If people insist on seeing this AIRPLANE as a UH-1 setting down into the elephant grass as a function of 'cultural memory'; they //will be// severely disappointed.

It's when you look at it as an ESTOL platform capable of taking advantage of a say a block-long run of street or farmers field FAR AWAY from a predictable threat location. That it's true range:speed advantages come to the fore.

You try and assault land it into a hot zone and you are going to lose a lot of airframes, needlessly, to both golden bb and not-a-helo power on VRing stall issues from excessive descent rates with small rotor disks and a highly loaded wing.


posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 09:12 AM
It looks really nice... i've always been a bit sceptic with this plane... I want to see it ins ervice before I comment anymore...

new topics

top topics

log in