V-22 Osprey Put to the Test in Iraq

Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by Zaphod58

It's always how the US had to buy information from Russia, or how the Russians were testing it first, or how many prolems it has.

That’s because the issues I bring up are simply ALL TRUE! And truth is rarely a comfortable thing, DEFEAT is also a type of truth in ANY conflict.

“The Art of War” will be a good read for you.

Not to get completely off-topic, perhaps you could start a thread for us iskander, but aside from the theft of the MiG 31 by Mitchell Gant, when has the US begged, borrowed, stolen or bought info or technology from either the USSR or Russia? And, further, when has the USSR or Russia successfully introduced a weapons system before the US or the West? I return your attention to the word "successfully".

How about posting some stats for how often CH46s are down due to some maintenance issue, or have to divert. The number of fatalities is misleading, as the majority happened in one crash. If there had been 30 crashes, instead of 30 fatalities, your arguments would be stronger.

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV

when has the US begged, borrowed, stolen or bought info or technology from either the USSR or Russia?

Through out the entire Cold War, it’s standard procedure, called intelligence gathering.

These days in more in the field of industrial espionage, financial sabotage/takeovers, etc.

We wanted their MiG-15 just as bad as they wanted the F-86, and that never ends.

And, further, when has the USSR or Russia successfully introduced a weapons system before the US or the West? I return your attention to the word "successfully".

HowlrunnerIV, that one I’ll leave to you to find out. Please do look into Soviet POLICY which drove generational weapon systems requirements for their MIC.

It has to do with causality and action-reaction type of things.

They play chess, we play poker and bluff our butts off while they consider bluffing only as a last result because statistically when it’s called it shows a position of weakness.

Take your time, you won’t regret it.

reply to post by iskander


intelligence gather for preparedness and responce. If you stuble on something top secret that you can use great but the main point is to know your enemy. To generalize all of intelligence gather activities to just stealing tech I hope your my enemy.

Bluffing eh? what do you call the soviet ICBM and bomber race that Amercia entered becuase through bad intelligence and bluffing on the soviet part that those where the threats at seperate times and then when the US focused on either of them the jumped ahead of even the soviet bluff.

Also you didn't really answer howlrunner on the question.
But in a effort to appear balanced would these things qualify.
-Sputnik
-first man in space
-first ballistic missile launch from a sub

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Not to get completely off-topic, perhaps you could start a thread for us iskander, but aside from the theft of the MiG 31 by Mitchell Gant, when has the US begged, borrowed, stolen or bought info or technology from either the USSR or Russia? And, further, when has the USSR or Russia successfully introduced a weapons system before the US or the West? I return your attention to the word "successfully".

HowlrunnerIV let me respectfully suggest that the Russians have been ahead of us from the getgo not beginning with but including Luna 1, 2, and 3. And in case you don't know what they are, they were missions to the moon in 1959. Luna 3 took pictures of trhe farside in 1959.

The only success the U.S. has had in countering Russian techonology is covering up the fact that the Russians have always been ahead. Oh yes, they soft landed on the moon in 1966 while we were still one year away from killing 4 astronauts on the pad in Apollo 1.

As far as your question when has Russia "successfully" introduced a weapon system, before the U.S. or the west the question should be when 'haven't' they? The joke is on the American public who think the Russians are a bunch of bumbling idiots whose sole contribution to the space effort is to deliver fresh fruit with Progress. Oh yes, you probably think Progress is fully automated and nobody is in them, right?

But thanks for the post, it confirms my suspicions about the gulllibility of the American public.

I said start another thread. I don't want to divert this one, so this is my only response on this off-topic topic.

Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV

 

when has the US begged, borrowed, stolen or bought info or technology from either the USSR or Russia?

Through out the entire Cold War, it’s standard procedure, called intelligence gathering.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. That's called "forewarning".

These days in more in the field of industrial espionage, financial sabotage/takeovers, etc.

Again, wrong.

We wanted their MiG-15 just as bad as they wanted the F-86, and that never ends.

Again, wrong. The yanks wanted it so they could fly it themselves. There was no tech on it they didn't already have and the engine, specifically, was a Western product; the Rolls Royce Nene, in fact. As for jets themselves. The Soviets owed theirs to the Germans, the Yanks owed theirs to the UK, who had them BEFORE the USSR.

And, further, when has the USSR or Russia successfully introduced a weapons system before the US or the West? I return your attention to the word "successfully".

HowlrunnerIV, that one I’ll leave to you to find out. Please do look into Soviet POLICY which drove generational weapon systems requirements for their MIC.

No, no, no. No dodging. You made the assertion, you back it up. In a new thread.

It has to do with causality and action-reaction type of things.

No. It has to do with teaching and learning and budget allocations.

They play chess, we play poker and bluff our butts off while they consider bluffing only as a last result because statistically when it’s called it shows a position of weakness.

Wow. How to totally misunderstand Cold War Politik and Cold War dynamics. I am well impressed. Kennedy *may* have been bluffing over Cuban Missile Crisis. The US wasn't bluffing when it consistently produced better aircraft than the USSR. The UK wasn't bluffing when it consistently produced better tanks than the USSR.

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

when has the USSR or Russia successfully introduced a weapons system before the US or the West? I return your attention to the word "successfully".

HowlrunnerIV let me respectfully suggest that the Russians have been ahead of us from the getgo not beginning with but including Luna 1, 2, and 3. And in case you don't know what they are, they were missions to the moon in 1959. Luna 3 took pictures of trhe farside in 1959.

John, who doesn't know about Sputnik, Laika and Yuri Gargarin. I specifically said weapons system. Soyuz rockets may have been a great test-bed for ICBM technology, but they were not themselves ICBMs.

The only success the U.S. has had in countering Russian techonology is covering up the fact that the Russians have always been ahead.

I said nothing about countering USSR tech. If the USSR has always been so far ahead, why the panic-driven development of the Foxbat A? An interceptor whose only purpose was to shoot down a bomber that was never put into production? An interceptor which couldn't out-turn or out-shoot any Western fighter? If they were so far ahead why didn't they shoot down the first U2 overflight?

Oh yes, they soft landed on the moon in 1966 while we were still one year away from killing 4 astronauts on the pad in Apollo 1.

Funny, but I don't call ramming photographic missions into the moon "soft".

As far as your question when has Russia "successfully" introduced a weapon system, before the U.S. or the west the question should be when 'haven't' they?

Got any examples?

The joke is on the American public who think the Russians are a bunch of bumbling idiots whose sole contribution to the space effort is to deliver fresh fruit with Progress. Oh yes, you probably think Progress is fully automated and nobody is in them, right?

1. Not Amercan, north, south or central. 2. No. Being from the Commonwealth I actually studied the industrial revolution at school. You know, the part of history where the British invented the modern world with their bare hands (that's me deliberately misunderstanding "Progress")...As for the Soviets and the space race, their contribution was to learn the dangers of a pure oxygen environment long before Gus Grissom and co's horrific demise. So, I guess they really were ahead. Say, how many USAF Generals have been killed by IRBM launchers exploding during demonstration launches?

But thanks for the post, it confirms my suspicions about the gulllibility of the American public.

Thanks for making assumptions. You know what they say about assuming things, it just makes an ass...

reply to post by johnlear

I seek only the truth. But let me make it perfectly clear how little I think I know:
1. All of my claims are only possibilities.
2. I could be completely misinformed.
3. All of what I believe might not be true.
John Lear

Mr. johnlear, I would appreciate a hint oh how I can attach a signature to my profile.

I’m thinking of something like this;

“I’m old enough to know that I don’t know everything, but I’ll always be young enough to be paid for pretending that I do.”

Would that be to much?

I was on youtube watching close calls with military planes and it showed the ospray screw up a landing. The main thing about the osprey that hacks me off is the propellers its a mockery of the American military power. Two small jets would perform better and add speed and (i think please correct if wrong) a smaller area needed to land. Paratroopers would still be able to fight and it would end up benefitting the effort in irak. And if no jet engines then make a more safe aircraft.

reply to post by Semoro


The Osprey does have jets. What do you think turboshafts are?

There's a reason they power a pair of rotors/propellers. It's called torque.

en.wikipedia.org...

What do you need to lift heavy things? A: torque.
What do you need to go fast? A: RPMs.

Look at it this way: A Kenworth T658 pumps out 625hp from its Cummins. A Holden Monaro pumps out 380hp (350 for your version, the GTO). So if the Kenworth/Cummins is nearly double the power of the muscle car, why is it less than half the speed?

Why is a Katana SO much faster than a Fatboy when it has a smaller engine? Why can the Fatboy go down the highway all day long?

There was a VTOL tiltfan once before. The Bell X-22.

en.wikipedia.org...

You don't think the designers of the Boeing/Bell V-22 Osprey might have looked at the Bell X-22 when they began? It's weird, I know, but I always assume that aeronautical design engineers have more knowledge of their subject than me. I mean, I like to modify things, but I don't think my dad's shed gave me the knowledge to criticise Adolf Buseman...

Even after 20 years the Osprey is still on the bleeding edge of the technology. And putting it into operation now means Marines are going to be doing the bleeding.

So it's twice as fast as a helicopter. It doesn't mean much if it's downwash makes it dangerous for crowded shipborne operations or will cause brownouts when trying to hover/land in many areas it will be expected to operate. Namely the arid/desert environments that make up most of Iraq and Afghanistan.

There's too many things wrong with this aircraft and under field conditions it's going to cause a lot of casualties.

reply to post by what-lies-beneith

So it's twice as fast as a helicopter. It doesn't mean much if it's downwash makes it dangerous for crowded shipborne operations or will cause brownouts when trying to hover/land in many areas it will be expected to operate. Namely the arid/desert environments that make up most of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I can only imagine. A hovering Blackhawk kicks up enough crap to cover you head to tow, an Osprey will bring up camel/donkey crap that was “deposited” there before the days of Christ.

For the ones that don’t know, populated desert is not like a big sand box where kids play with shovels and buckets, it’s a mix of crap (literally) that’ll make a maggot vomit.

You don’t greet or shake with the left hand because in the desert there is no “soft and gentile” type TP there for you, and camels don’t read much newspapers, so you wipe with your left hand, and eat with your right.

Anybody ever wondered why Arabs cut the hand of for stealing? Think of it this way, It’ll put a bit of a dent in your social life when you have to eat and wipe a$$ with the same hand.

Now think where all that crap goes in the desert. It dries out and mixes with all other imaginable filth, and now imagine a Blackhawk kicking all that nasty sh!t up right in your face. Its breakfast lunch and diner all in one, courtesy of all living things that learned to crap at the beginning of time.

In this sense, the Osprey can be thought of as a giant flying culinary gadget, kind of a twin rotor crap mixer/whisker, that really kicks up, mixes and fluffs up all that sh!t just for you.

I bet a Marine will think twice on this one. “Uhmm, do I fell like having my mouth stuffed with RH/donkey/camel crap or do I go back and shoot back at those laughing bastards?”

edit:spl...


[edit on 5-1-2008 by iskander]

[edit on 5-1-2008 by iskander]

I was refering more to waveoffs due to lost visibility or pilots flying into the ground when they lost orientation in the thick cloud of crud kicked up.

Your version is pretty unpleasant also.

V-22's have been in Iraq for 3 months out of the 7 for their tour of duty and so far no problems. The next thing most people are going to say is probably the same this general said though.

"As long as they keep using it like a truck, I think they'll probably be okay," said Philip Coyle, a former Pentagon weapons testing director and a longtime Osprey critic.

As many people have said though this is the first time out for the V-22 and if you look at some other stats its doing a good job.

VMM-263, had logged 1,639 hours of flight time in Iraq, carried 6,826 passengers and delivered 631,837 pounds of cargo without a mishap or even a close call...
The article mentions the various missions that "Thunder Chicken" aircraft have been involved in, including an ersatz combat mission called "aeroscout."

www.defensetech.org...

Interesting.

I'm probably more than a little biased against the machine, they've been working on it for about half my lifetime, and still can't seem to get everything just right.

It's level of complexity is always going to be an issue, even if some of the other red flag issues like the downwash and loss of lift on one prop are dealt with.

It's also important to remember that the Ospreys' main intent is to give Marines standoff capability with amphibious operations. Running transport missions from prepared landing zones doesn't really simulate the crowded conditions that will be present on assault ships or the unprepared LZs on shore during an invasion. The high tempo of operations is going to require an aircraft that has a much higher rate of availibility than 50% also.



[edit on 9-1-2008 by what-lies-beneith]

Originally posted by what-lies-beneith
It's also important to remember that the Ospreys' main intent is to give Marines standoff capability with amphibious operations. Running transport missions from prepared landing zones doesn't really simulate the crowded conditions that will be present on assault ships or the unprepared LZs on shore during an invasion. The high tempo of operations is going to require an aircraft that has a much higher rate of availibility than 50% also.

It is my opinion that there is no organization in all the world who understands amphibious operations or the demands of the battlefield more than the United States Marine Corps.

This is the aircraft that the Marine Corps has chosen and knowing first hand how the Marine Corps has for the totality of its history built its reputation with hand-me-down, barely functioning equipment, I believe that the Corps will, as they always have, make this beast work and work well.

Don't be surprised if the Corps is still using the Osprey in 2045.

I'm not doubting the Marines ability, and they'll probably be able to find ways to adapt the V-22 to their needs, it's just in the chaos that often comes with combat having an aircraft with major quirks is sometimes going to cause major complications that can snowball.

It's going to be a benefit to have a craft that has the vertical capabilities of a helicopter and the speed of a fixed wing transport. In some conditions the massive downdraft, cramped cabin, poor environmental system, and tendency to flip over when decending rapidly is going to be a problem.

There's also reliability, IIRC in some of the test operations they were getting as high as a 50% abort rate. That's not acceptable in a frontline combat tranport.

This Osprey has always looked like one big target to me. The props are 40 ft. across each. I think they have been working on this since the 1950's starting with the Bell XV-3. Doesn't look like a combat machine to me. But hey gotta start making a return on it someday.$$$$$$$

reply to post by TamtammyMacx


Not sure exactly what you mean by the 1960's? The program and development of the Osprey the V-22 started in 1981, first under Army leadership, then the Navy/Marine Corps. The 1960's statement makes me think that your thinking since the idea or concept of tilt rotor tech came to be. The idea started in the 1930's actually with George Lehberge and then was moved forward with the Focke-Achgelis FA-269 which never flew in the 40's designed by the germans like many other prototypes. The main part of development of the actual work and in-flight testing of the idea was carried out in the CL-84 Canadian V/STOL program inbetween 1964 and 1972 and the XV-3 Bell program in 1955 which continued on to the XV-15 in 1971 at which point the step was to the V-22 program in the 81.

Don't know what you mean by saying the 1960"s. I was referring to the 1950's because of the Bell XV-3. It looked more like the earliest start of Osprey design than others.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by TamtammyMacx]

reply to post by TamtammyMacx


Simple mistake of reading to quickly on my part on the 60s statement but the fact of the idea or concept of the tilt rotor design does start before the 50s even is my point yes though you would be right is saying that you can really see similarities with the Osprey in the XV-15 not as much with the XV-3 though the CL-84 as these designs still where working out engine placement and how to harness the driveshaft etc.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by Canada_EH]