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.

 

Osprey In Iraq - Doing OK

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:39 AM
link   
www.military.com...



As of Dec. 28, three months through a scheduled seven-month deployment, the 23 pilots of Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263, known as 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.


Well there on `General duties` and not really in the line of fire - but for a first tour - they new aircraft , especially after a troubled few years is doing allright out there




posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 05:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
www.military.com...



As of Dec. 28, three months through a scheduled seven-month deployment, the 23 pilots of Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263, known as 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.


Well there on `General duties` and not really in the line of fire - but for a first tour - they new aircraft , especially after a troubled few years is doing allright out there


Of course they will not put it in the line of fire, they want it to look good.

There is already a thread on this.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


It's performing the same missions as the CH-46, with regards to the "general duties."



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Most of the naysayers of the V-22 are incredibly ignorant of the current state of the craft. It's hard to accept new technology, yet it's easy to believe that technology that doesn't even exist is a constant threat to one's safety, health and well-being.

Personally, I still can't believe that anyone ever thought it would be possible to land airplanes on the deck of a ship and at night, no less.

If I hadn't seen the films, I would have a hard time believing that B-25 bombers could be loaded onto aircraft carriers to carry out air raids on the Japanese mainland.

There are people here who still can't believe that Americans landed on the moon, so it is not much of a stretch to consider that there are those here who will never believe that the V-22 will ever be a viable troop carrier in a combat zone.

But, it's not their job to see that the thing works and the words "adapt, improvise, overcome" have no meaning to them either.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 05:46 AM
link   

But, it's not their job to see that the thing works and the words "adapt, improvise, overcome" have no meaning to them either.


Even though this is a redundant thread and should be closed, I put it this way.

In order to “"adapt, improvise, overcome" when one of the engines fails, troop inside will have to be fitted with paddles so they can manually spin that second prop for a “somewhat” controlled emergency landing.

During WWII Soviets had a “bright” idea of attaching a bi-plane glider to a light TANK and fly in right into a combat zone, take wild guess how that one ended up.

The amazing thing is that one test flight actually took place, a part of the tail boom snapped, but the pilot miraculously managed to land that hellish contraption and walk away from the “landing” alive.

The difference is that Russians learned their lesson and never attempted to make a tank fly again, yet we to this day fooling our selves into believing that a Franken-copter will actually fulfill the role it’s supposed to.

Once again, and the very test pilot of the Osprey said “as such the Osprey will NEVER be an excellent helicopter or an excellent plane”.

End of story. Back to the original thread.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
The Bradley fighting vehicle had a lot of growing pains in its development, and an awful lot of critics. It has turned out to be a very good piece of equipment. The Osprey will mature in much the same way.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by GT100FV
 



The Bradley fighting vehicle had a lot of growing pains in its development, and an awful lot of critics. It has turned out to be a very good piece of equipment. The Osprey will mature in much the same way.


Get NetFlix and order a movie called “Pentagon Wars”, it is based on true events and clearly shows how the Bradley was developed.

It’s a comedy, originally written as a book by the very guy who was in charge of testing the Bradley, so naturally he was forced to retire a bit early.

Bradley is a freaking death trap which the Israelis would not even buy before they forced their own modifications, all while the assembly plant ran two lines, one with Israeli specified changes, and another unchanged for US forces.

Really, rent the movie, have a laugh.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

Once again, and the very test pilot of the Osprey said “as such the Osprey will NEVER be an excellent helicopter or an excellent plane”.

defently think you need to put that into context. that like saying the F-35 will never be excellent in A2A doesn't mean is sucks donkey butt at both role or just the one. Honestly a quote like that "could" be extremely out of context.

Also this thread should of been closed along time ago


[edit on 12-1-2008 by Canada_EH]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Most of the naysayers of the V-22 are incredibly ignorant of the current state of the craft. It's hard to accept new technology, yet it's easy to believe that technology that doesn't even exist is a constant threat to one's safety, health and well-being.

Personally, I still can't believe that anyone ever thought it would be possible to land airplanes on the deck of a ship and at night, no less.

If I hadn't seen the films, I would have a hard time believing that B-25 bombers could be loaded onto aircraft carriers to carry out air raids on the Japanese mainland.

There are people here who still can't believe that Americans landed on the moon, so it is not much of a stretch to consider that there are those here who will never believe that the V-22 will ever be a viable troop carrier in a combat zone.

But, it's not their job to see that the thing works and the words "adapt, improvise, overcome" have no meaning to them either.


As a tranport from prepared LZs the V-22 will work fine, even if it requires more maintainance than most operational aircraft.

The lack of the ability to autorotate makes it a dog as far as a combat transport goes. This has nothing to do with not understanding new technology, it's about understanding the needs required when flying something as complex and vulnerable as a helicopter or tilt-rotor craft into ground-fire. Hits are going to be inevitable and so is loss of power to one or more engine. In those conditions the V-22 is often going to be lethal to entire crews and troop compliments carried.

The lack of a forward firing supressive weapon is also a major failing. Wrap it up any way you want, the V-22 doesn't measure up to the hype we've been given for over 2 decades now.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
The Bradley fighting vehicle had a lot of growing pains in its development, and an awful lot of critics. It has turned out to be a very good piece of equipment. The Osprey will mature in much the same way.


Used properly the Bradley is an effective vehicle, but in the presense of heavy AT fire it's a death trap still. It's not a MBT and won't keep out kinetic rounds designed to punch through heavy armor.

Same thing for the V-22, it'll be fine as long as it's kept out of harms way. Fly it too agressively or let it get peppered with ground fire and there's going to be a lot of dead Marines.


[edit on 12-1-2008 by what-lies-beneith]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
For those who worry about auto-rotation or losing an engine:


The aircraft is incapable of autorotation in the case of engine failure, a fact that led a director of the Pentagon's testing office in 2005 to say that if the Osprey loses power while flying like a helicopter below 1,600 feet (490 m) emergency landings "are not likely to be survivable." But Captain Justin (Moon) McKinney, a V-22 pilot, says that this will not be a problem, "We can turn it into a plane and glide it down, just like a C-130".[11] A complete loss of power would require the failure of both engines as a drive shaft connects the nacelles through the wing; one engine can power both propellers.[12]

en.wikipedia.org...


www.globalsecurity.org...


[edit on 2008/1/12 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Yup,

And pilots are only allowed to practice this maneuver on simulators and the even then the chances of a survivable landing are doubtful.

It ws only a few years ago the V-22 fleet was grounded for 18 months because of accidents while attempting combat maneuvering. Unless there's been extensive redesign of the flying software and/or control systems of the sircraft, this is still a questionable craft to be flying into combat. Flying a nice predictable glidepath so your V-22 doesn't fall out of the sky is presenting an easy target for anyone on the ground with a combination of MANPADs, light AAA and even RPGs.




[edit on 12-1-2008 by what-lies-beneith]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 



"We can turn it into a plane and glide it down, just like a C-130".[11] A complete loss of power would require the failure of both engines as a drive shaft connects the nacelles through the wing; one engine can power both propellers.


That sounds like something Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer would say to Santa after his sled got hit by an Iraqi RPG.

Just keep repeating the quote with enthusiasm while those giant props are helping to gently glide…



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 


Have you ever served in the military?

Have you ever flown anything?

Have you ever flown in any thing?

Everyone knows that V-22s will crash and that in doing so Marines will die.

Quoting one of my favorite films, "Marines die! That's what we're here for!"

Anyone who has ever been in combat knows that things rarely go as planned, but that's why we train.

Your constant criticisms of the aircraft are nothing more than the ineffectual whining of a kibitzer.

I'll put my faith in the Marine Corps and those whom it comprises.

They will make it work.

People like you are the uninspired Luddites who are nothing more than a side note in the story of the advance of mankind.


[edit on 2008/1/12 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 



I'll put my faith in the Marine Corps and those whom it comprises.


That just makes me think of “Catch-22” when Yossarian is looking for his parachute.


They will make it work.


Yes they will. Just imagine it under water, and how slowly, stealthy and gracefully those giant props are propelling it towards an enemy submarine.

Did you know that they tried to make Bradley amphibious? Kind of like a BMP. Four of them sank. Bradley’s, not BMPs, those things swim to this day, like ducks, diving and everything.

Four of them. I have wonder what were the collective thoughts after the sinking of the third one; “we’re going to do it again?”


People like you are the uninspired Luddites who are nothing more than a side note in the story of the advance of mankind.


You’ve just insulted my muse, so she went out drinking with the sane people. As for me, I don’t even smoke any more. I’m literally running out of things to quit.

How about this thread?



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Everyone knows that V-22s will crash and that in doing so Marines will die.


There is, believe it or not a difference. There's a difference between a Marine who dies because his craft is hit by a weapon as they go in to defend people from terrors across the world, and the one who dies because someone somewhere along the line forgot something. There's a difference between an aircraft that crashes because something happened to it in duty that it simply wasn't made to withstand, and the aircraft that crashes because it was unsafe.



Your constant criticisms of the aircraft are nothing more than the ineffectual whining of a kibitzer.


Were it not for people like us who constantly criticize equipment, we wouldn't have nearly what we have today. Would the SR-71 have had stealth if everyone decided that Mach 3+, FL 800 aircraft was outside all defense parameters? No, probably not. And because people thought that the aircraft wasn't quite good enough, they got a better plane in the end. I believe one of the Roman Caesars had said warfare could never get any better than what it was. Would we have any of what we have today had nobody thought that the equipment needed to be better?



People like you are the uninspired Luddites who are nothing more than a side note in the story of the advance of mankind.


This aircraft is ambitious. It is also inherently dangerous. It is not a new idea, but it is probably the most serious attempt to make it work yet. Because of that, we're working with something we haven't done so much before. Therefore we have to expect that it won't go exactly as we expect in the real world. And if we don't strive to make it as good as possible for the parameters in which it's supposed to work, we're putting the Marines in unnecessary danger.

Wouldn't you agree that such a thing would be a rather undesirable thing to do for those brave men?



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkpr0
 


May I see your credentials, please?

The Marine Corps has deployed the aircraft to Iraq.

It will be tested and improved in the crucible of war in one of the most environmentally hostile places on the planet.

Did the Marine Corps request the permission of anyone here to do so?

I thought not.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by what-lies-beneith
Yup,

And pilots are only allowed to practice this maneuver on simulators and the even then the chances of a survivable landing are doubtful.

It ws only a few years ago the V-22 fleet was grounded for 18 months because of accidents while attempting combat maneuvering. Unless there's been extensive redesign of the flying software and/or control systems of the sircraft, this is still a questionable craft to be flying into combat. Flying a nice predictable glidepath so your V-22 doesn't fall out of the sky is presenting an easy target for anyone on the ground with a combination of MANPADs, light AAA and even RPGs.




[edit on 12-1-2008 by what-lies-beneith]



VRS is only entered decent rates of around 1500 feet per minute, that's HARDLY a 'nice predictable 'glidepath''. Turning a V-22 into a glider doesn't have anything to do with the Osprey crahes either.


reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 

Just pop him on ignore if you hate him so much. I did a looonnnng time ago.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 



May I see your credentials, please?


I’m sorry is there a guest list I’m not aware of?

What’s the pay, how are the hours? Is it per page? Or is he doing it on purpose?

It’s the OSPREYs! Their everywhere! Wipers don’t help at all!

Oh man I feel a “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” moment coming on, wait, did I say that out loud?



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   


People like you are the uninspired Luddites who are nothing more than a side note in the story of the advance of mankind.


This has nothing to do with being against technology, it's about facing the facts that will effect the men and women who will be putting their lives on the line. And it's not the jobs of Marines to die, it's their job to protect the nation.

It's not like these questions have just been raised recently, this project would have been killed almost 20 years ago if it wasn't for political interference that had more to do with protecting votes than protecting a viable weapons system.

I don't care how well it does as a aerial truck, it's not a combat transport, and it's only going to be when the crap hits the fan that that becomes entirely apparent to some people. Personally I don't look forward to seeing footage of Ospreys flying into the ground killing a lot of Marines.

[edit on 12-1-2008 by what-lies-beneith]

[edit on 12-1-2008 by what-lies-beneith]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join