V-22 Osprey, should it stay of should it go?

[john70t]

Nothing that the Chinook couldn't do better. Pork.

The Commanche, on the other hand, had a range of independant offensive capabilities which could have been expanded on.

[FOG]

John70t,

Actually while the -47 series of helicopters are very good helos they do not adapt well to the naval environment, their foot print is too big.

Wayne,

The question remains what is the -22 good for? I can see limited use in long range raids and in theater augmentation of medevac requirements. The range issue is kind of moot at best as it and helos will need aerial refueling. The redundancy factors with the -22 both in terms of aircraft and tankers results in a much larger package, thus easier to detect.

S/F, FOG

[slodave]

Originally Posted by Capt. Carrera

So, what advantages is the Osprey supposed to bring to the theater?

Be able to act like a helicopter to bring troops where there is no runway. Since it can fly like a plane, it can go higher and escape some gun fire, small missiles...

Dave

[FOG]

Slodave,

The -22 is limited to a maximum rate of descent into the zone of 800 FPM. Most others are above 4,000 FPM and I believe the CH-53E bubbas have the best being above 6,000 FPM. Plus the helos can utilize defensive maneuvering tactics while descending.

As far as being able to fly above AA and man pads I call at least a partial BS. ManPads reach over 10,000’ from sea level, even larger deltas when fired from higher elevations. You need oxygen above 10,000’ msl for all aircrew and anybody who is going to work when they get out. Everybody when you get to 13,000’ msl and above. You need to pre-breath pure oxygen if you go above 18,000’ msl. In other words not very practical with troops or otherwise.

I (and others as well) can see a battlefield role in medevac. If the zone is safe enough you can drastically reduce the transit time and hopefully save more people or return them in better condition. Certain types of long range raids, though it and other helos will still need aerial re-fueling support.

S/F, FOG

[slodave]

Originally Posted by FOG

Slodave,

The -22 is limited to a maximum rate of descent into the zone of 800 FPM. Most others are above 4,000 FPM and I believe the CH-53E bubbas have the best being above 6,000 FPM. Plus the helos can utilize defensive maneuvering tactics while descending.

As far as being able to fly above AA and man pads I call at least a partial BS. ManPads reach over 10,000’ from sea level, even larger deltas when fired from higher elevations. You need oxygen above 10,000’ msl for all aircrew and anybody who is going to work when they get out. Everybody when you get to 13,000’ msl and above. You need to pre-breath pure oxygen if you go above 18,000’ msl. In other words not very practical with troops or otherwise.

I (and others as well) can see a battlefield role in medevac. If the zone is safe enough you can drastically reduce the transit time and hopefully save more people or return them in better condition. Certain types of long range raids, though it and other helos will still need aerial re-fueling support.

S/F, FOG

I was only reiterating two points that I had read about, that answered the other post about what advantages the V-22 has over other aircraft.

As for being shot out of the sky, again, I mentioned smal arms fire - stuff that you read about in the paper taking out helicopters in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia...

There was something about how the rotors worked normally and how they could still function if a gear box that ties the two together fails.

I don't know much about the aircraft, other than what the guys at the hydraulic company have told me and from what I have read over the years.

Battlefield exposure will ultimately tell the future of the V-22.

Dave

[Jim Sims]

No forward or side armament, can't autorotate, large propellers that hit the ground and shred or fragment (at best) if a fixed wing mode landing is required and heavy engine nacelles and high thrust out on the wingtips making roll recovery from an assymetric vortex ring state more difficult.

I'm wondering if this 110 to 130 M$ per copy aircraft will truly be put in harms way or will it be limited to relatively "safe" missions.

[FOG]

Slodave,

Without going into TTPs the only people above small arms windows as a matter of course are the HVAs and fast jets.

The -22 uses a free turbine principle. So if the synch shaft is lost and you have power on both engines you should be able to get it down w/o killing everyone on board in the acft configuration. If you loose one engine and the sync shaft you can’t use power on the one engine for anything put hydraulics and electric, i.e. basically dead stick it in.

S/F, FOG

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by FOG

If you loose one engine and the sync shaft you can’t use power on the one engine for anything put hydraulics and electric, i.e. basically dead stick it in.

S/F, FOG

Something about "dead sticking" a -22 most anywhere does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling...



I have a couple of hundred hours in a helo but personally am a big fan of wings...

[Noah930]

Originally Posted by Aerkuld

I don't understand why you would suggest scrapping it now that it's finally working?

I understand your sentiment. But, in all fairness, it might be premature to celebrate that the aircraft is "finally working." You're probably not the first to say that in the last 20 years.

[FOG]

Joe,

The -22 doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy period. Just think of all the extra asymetric power considerations above and beyond normal aircraft. Makes my head hurt.

Harriers and Skyhawks have been dead sticked. The F-16 has has HAPL procedures.

S/F, FOG