V22 Osprey

[Jimmy cooper]

Understood. I see the V-22 as a really unique aircraft that is just scratching the surface of the concept's capabilities. It fulfills a unique role. Later iterations will take it much further.

I don't want to get into "classified material" either but what is available is that the osprey is a complete boondoggle, has killed quite a few in simulated operations, is far too complex in real combat situations , tremendous maintenance for each hour flown, easy to bring down, ( a fifty caliber type weapon near the Lz would wreak havoc on it) and it has cost millions upon millions of dollars with little to show for it. It also seems very vulnerable at landing where , due to prop wash, it becomes very unstable and wants to turn over upside down. In actual combat it would be a disaster. Like the F35 , it should have been shut down long ago, cheney tried but failed to end it but lobbyists prevailed.

 

[dell30rb]

please show me an aircraft that wouldn't have trouble with a .50 cal near the LZ




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fearless Tower]

please show me an aircraft that wouldn't have trouble with a .50 cal near the LZ




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wonder Woman's invisible plane!

 

[Henning]

I don't want to get into "classified material" either but what is available is that the osprey is a complete boondoggle, has killed quite a few in simulated operations, is far too complex in real combat situations , tremendous maintenance for each hour flown, easy to bring down, ( a fifty caliber type weapon near the Lz would wreak havoc on it) and it has cost millions upon millions of dollars with little to show for it. It also seems very vulnerable at landing where , due to prop wash, it becomes very unstable and wants to turn over upside down. In actual combat it would be a disaster. Like the F35 , it should have been shut down long ago, cheney tried but failed to end it but lobbyists prevailed.

Unless you are in a tank or maybe APC, a .50BMG type round is likely going to **** you up.

 

[red4golf]

Unless you are in a tank or maybe APC, a .50BMG type round is likely going to **** you up.

50s just screws up my paint and my personal gear but cuts through an APC like butter.

Aircraft are a little different animal. We lost a Soldier to 30 cal rifle fire in a C130 climbing out of Baghdad Intl to go home on R&R.

The -46, -47, -60, UH-1 or -22 wouldn't do much better.

Let the -22 mature and I bet the USMC will make it in to a great tool for what they do.

 

[35 AoA]

Aircraft are a little different animal. We lost a Soldier to 30 cal rifle fire in a C130 climbing out of Baghdad Intl to go home on R&R.

that's pretty f'd up.....sorry to hear it. Just recently watched a youtube video filmed by ISIL during the timeframe I was flying over mosul dam ISO of the Pesh. Tons of big calibre gunfire in the background. I had no freaking clue. Not that it would have ever been effective at the altitudes we worked, but to be honest, that didn't even cross my mind on a single flight over there.

 

[poadeleted20]

Wonder Woman's invisible plane!

As a teaching point on aircraft survivability, that invisibility is a susceptibility reduction, not a vulnerability reduction. Which is why the F-117 got shot down in Yugoslavia -- they couldn't see it (low susceptibility), but the put a bunch of bullets up where they knew it was going due to repeated predictable flight paths, and it ran into the bullets, and the bullets damaged it beyond flyability (vulnerability). OTOH, the A-10 is highly susceptible to being hit, but essentially invulnerable to a .50cal/12.7mm API (and most HEI's, too).

 

[Fearless Tower]

As a teaching point on aircraft survivability, that invisibility is a susceptibility reduction, not a vulnerability reduction. Which is why the F-117 got shot down in Yugoslavia -- they couldn't see it (low susceptibility), but the put a bunch of bullets up where they knew it was going due to repeated predictable flight paths, and it ran into the bullets, and the bullets damaged it beyond flyability (vulnerability). OTOH, the A-10 is highly susceptible to being hit, but essentially invulnerable to a .50cal/12.7mm API (and most HEI's, too).

Good grief, Ron....I make a joke about a 1980s kid's cartoon and you go into talking about the history of the Stealth Fighter....

 

[poadeleted20]

Good grief, Ron....I make a joke about a 1980s kid's cartoon and you go into talking about the history of the Stealth Fighter....

Sorry -- I thought your mention was an excellent example of the difference between susceptibility and vulnerability even if you had not intended that as such. In that regard, you'd made a really great point.

 

[Henning]

Sorry -- I thought your mention was an excellent example of the difference between susceptibility and vulnerability even if you had not intended that as such. In that regard, you'd made a really great point.

But I thought her plane was bullet proof as well?

 

[Art VanDelay]

Lack of door gunners doesn't create "vulnerability" as that term is defined in the aircraft survivability world. "Survivability" is the capability of an aircraft to [FONT=QMVIQF+Palatino-LightItalic,Palatino][FONT=QMVIQF+Palatino-LightItalic,Palatino]avoid and/or withstand [/FONT][/FONT]a man made hostile environment. Survivability has two components:

• Susceptibility - the inability to avoid being hit by a weapon, including both avoiding detection and avoiding being hit once detected.
• Vulnerability - the inability to withstand the hit.

Door gunners do not reduce vulnerability, other than perhaps by the shielding of critical components by the door gunner's body.

Call it anything you want -- it has nothing to do with the combat survivability of the V-22.

I gather you don't have detailed expertise on the signature reduction features of these various aircraft, either.

Thanks.

Tell me now about all your combat Helo time Ron ??? It's nice that you're an expert on SOME things but that does not automatically carry over to EVERYTHING. Just because you got to see some stuff on the Osprey a THOUSAND years ago when it was no doubt about seven versions out from its present form does not give you ultimate authority on it.

The guy you're sparring with ( Mcfly) is a COMBAT Helo pilot - that trumps a peacetime JAFO any day in my book and ought to mean something to you as well.

 

[Velocity173]

As a teaching point on aircraft survivability, that invisibility is a susceptibility reduction, not a vulnerability reduction. Which is why the F-117 got shot down in Yugoslavia -- they couldn't see it (low susceptibility), but the put a bunch of bullets up where they knew it was going due to repeated predictable flight paths, and it ran into the bullets, and the bullets damaged it beyond flyability (vulnerability). OTOH, the A-10 is highly susceptible to being hit, but essentially invulnerable to a .50cal/12.7mm API (and most HEI's, too).

While the Serbs knew the flight path in that case, the F-117 wasn't brought down by a hail of bullets. Two SA-3 missiles were launched against the aircraft. The ADA battery claimed they had lock 8 miles away. One missile narrowly missed while the other destroyed the aircraft thru proximity fuse.

 

[poadeleted20]

But I thought her plane was bullet proof as well?

If that is true, then it has very low vulnerability as well as very low susceptibility. The F-22 is probably a good example of that -- great low observable features, and a lot of vulnerability reduction features. By comparison, the A-10 is highly susceptible but nearly invulnerable, while the F-117 had very low susceptibility but not much in the way of vulnerability reduction. So, all things considered, if I had to go into combat in a fighter today, the F-22 is the one I'd want to be flying -- not much chance of being hit, but if I was hit, a great chance of getting home despite the hit.

 

[poadeleted20]

While the Serbs knew the flight path in that case, the F-117 wasn't brought down by a hail of bullets. Two SA-3 missiles were launched against the aircraft. The ADA battery claimed they had lock 8 miles away. One missile narrowly missed while the other destroyed the aircraft thru proximity fuse.

Point taken, but if they hadn't known the path, detection would have been delayed so they never would have gotten the lock before it was gone.

 

[poadeleted20]

The guy you're sparring with ( Mcfly) is a COMBAT Helo pilot - that trumps a peacetime JAFO any day in my book and ought to mean something to you as well.

Combat aircraft flight experience doesn't mean much when it comes to understanding aircraft survivability. They don't teach you anything about the fundamentals of aircraft survivability as part of military flight training, either training command or operationally -- not even the definitions of those terms. I flew combat aircraft for 14 years before getting into the business, and I had to learn it from the ground up when I got that job. Granted, my operational experience was a big help in learning the trade and performing aircraft survivability analyses, but that's it.

 

[overdrive148]

 

[jhausch]

An earlier post mentioned landing with the nacelles in flight mode (emergency situation). I recall reading the props are designed to fragment like "broomstraw" in that case.

 

[Henning]

An earlier post mentioned landing with the nacelles in flight mode (emergency situation). I recall reading the props are designed to fragment like "broomstraw" in that case.

I'd imagine so, but it would still be with both pulling.

 

[Velocity173]

Combat aircraft flight experience doesn't mean much when it comes to understanding aircraft survivability. They don't teach you anything about the fundamentals of aircraft survivability as part of military flight training, either training command or operationally -- not even the definitions of those terms. I flew combat aircraft for 14 years before getting into the business, and I had to learn it from the ground up when I got that job. Granted, my operational experience was a big help in learning the trade and performing aircraft survivability analyses, but that's it.

Of course this just covers the basics on unclassified REQUIRED annual training for Army Aviators. I won't even go into the numerous classified briefs I received on aircraft survivability from Redstone and the threat / ASE tactics from our local S2:

AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE 4-50. An ASE/EW training program will be established in writing by commanders in order to train flight crewmembers ASE operation and employment. ASE programs at a minimum will include ASE annual flight/academic training for each ASE system installed on the unit organic aircraft and area of responsibility (AOR) threat identification training. Written ASE programs will include at a minimum, RCM/NCM ASE annual flight/academic requirements, AOR threat identification training, and physical security procedures of assigned ASE. Commanders will designate appropriate ASE tasks to be evaluated annually. The training will be administered annually and evaluated per the appropriate ATM. Units without assigned ASE and Army special operations aviation units may use alternate ASE training programs and devices approved by their Army command. 4-51. Commanders will establish in the ATP an ASE/EW training program that reinforces the skills of the individual, crew, and unit. The program must provide training that realistically reflects the full spectrum of electronic warfare, based on applicable equipment and expected areas of deployment. Maximum use of existing EW ranges per the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) model is recommended. Individual crew, and collective ASE training requirements are outlined below: RCM ANNUAL COMPUTER-BASED ASE TRAINING (CBAT) 4-52. Commanders will specify CBAT requirements for RCMs for each ASE system that is installed or commonly used on the units assigned aircraft—for example, AN/APR-39A(V)1, AN/ALQ-144A/C, the Common Missile Warning System (CMWS). The commander may also specify additional ASE training requirements for NCMs. CBAT annual requirements will be annotated on the DA Form 7120-3-R. Completion of CBAT annual requirements will be annotated on the DA Form 7122-R. NCM ANNUAL CBAT 4-53. Commanders will specify CBAT requirements for SIs, FIs, and CEs for each installed ASE system that they participate in operating such as the Common Missile Warning System (CMWS). The commander may also specify additional ASE training requirements for NCMs. CBAT annual requirements will be annotated on the DA Form 7120-3-R. Completion of CBAT annual requirements will be annotated on the DA Form 7122-R. AIRCRAFT, CREW, AND COLLECTIVE SIMULATOR ASE REQUIREMENTS 4-54. Commanders with aircraft crew and collective aircraft trainers (to include classified mission load capable simulators) at their installation will develop and establish simulator training scenarios to be used that incorporate radar and infrared (IR) threats. Scenarios will be developed in standard operations order format that contain and trains to the ASE tasks and actions on contact that develop and instill instinctive crew reaction and confidence. Commanders will determine annual collective trainer scenario requirements if any. Annual scenario requirements for aircraft crew trainers are two scenarios (iterations) annually per crewmember.

 

[Catalo]

So in an aircraft like the v22 how do the controls work? Is it a yoke or does it have a cyclic and collective like a helicopter

 

[Henning]

So in an aircraft like the v22 how do the controls work? Is it a yoke or does it have a cyclic and collective like a helicopter

It's both! Kind cool, one of the pilots explained it to me at OSH. You have two controls, depending on how forward the nacelles are tilted, the computer mixes the inputs between rotor and airframe. Here's a brief video. http://youtu.be/dmUkCNlj7rY

 

[poadeleted20]

Of course this just covers the basics on unclassified REQUIRED annual training for Army Aviators. I won't even go into the numerous classified briefs I received on aircraft survivability from Redstone and the threat / ASE tactics from our local S2:

AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE 4-50. An ASE/EW training program will be established in writing by commanders in order to train flight crewmembers ASE operation and employment. ASE programs at a minimum will include ASE annual flight/academic training for each ASE system installed on the unit organic aircraft and area of responsibility (AOR) threat identification training. Written ASE programs will include at a minimum, RCM/NCM ASE annual flight/academic requirements, AOR threat identification training, and physical security procedures of assigned ASE. Commanders will designate appropriate ASE tasks to be evaluated annually. The training will be administered annually and evaluated per the appropriate ATM. Units without assigned ASE and Army special operations aviation units may use alternate ASE training programs and devices approved by their Army command. 4-51. Commanders will establish in the ATP an ASE/EW training program that reinforces the skills of the individual, crew, and unit. The program must provide training that realistically reflects the full spectrum of electronic warfare, based on applicable equipment and expected areas of deployment. Maximum use of existing EW ranges per the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) model is recommended. Individual crew, and collective ASE training requirements are outlined below: RCM ANNUAL COMPUTER-BASED ASE TRAINING (CBAT) 4-52. Commanders will specify CBAT requirements for RCMs for each ASE system that is installed or commonly used on the units assigned aircraft—for example, AN/APR-39A(V)1, AN/ALQ-144A/C, the Common Missile Warning System (CMWS). The commander may also specify additional ASE training requirements for NCMs. CBAT annual requirements will be annotated on the DA Form 7120-3-R. Completion of CBAT annual requirements will be annotated on the DA Form 7122-R. NCM ANNUAL CBAT 4-53. Commanders will specify CBAT requirements for SIs, FIs, and CEs for each installed ASE system that they participate in operating such as the Common Missile Warning System (CMWS). The commander may also specify additional ASE training requirements for NCMs. CBAT annual requirements will be annotated on the DA Form 7120-3-R. Completion of CBAT annual requirements will be annotated on the DA Form 7122-R. AIRCRAFT, CREW, AND COLLECTIVE SIMULATOR ASE REQUIREMENTS 4-54. Commanders with aircraft crew and collective aircraft trainers (to include classified mission load capable simulators) at their installation will develop and establish simulator training scenarios to be used that incorporate radar and infrared (IR) threats. Scenarios will be developed in standard operations order format that contain and trains to the ASE tasks and actions on contact that develop and instill instinctive crew reaction and confidence. Commanders will determine annual collective trainer scenario requirements if any. Annual scenario requirements for aircraft crew trainers are two scenarios (iterations) annually per crewmember.

And with all that training you still don't know the difference between suceptibility and vulnerability? Tell you what -- read this book and then come back.

 

[Matthew]

An earlier post mentioned landing with the nacelles in flight mode (emergency situation). I recall reading the props are designed to fragment like "broomstraw" in that case.

I found this:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22-survive.htm

>>>
In the event of a crash landing the wing is designed to fail outboard of the wing/fuselage attachment. This "mass shedding" absorbs kinetic energy from the crash.
<<<

>>>
In the event the V-22 must land with it proprotors in the horizontal or cruise position, the occupants are protected from flying proprotor shards. The blades simply fray into individual strands that pose no harm to the occupants.
<<<

 

[Velocity173]

And with all that training you still don't know the difference between suceptibility and vulnerability? Tell you what -- read this book and then come back.

Since you find the need to spin the conversation into English 101, I'll clarify my remarks on "vulnerability." All aircraft are vulnerable or inability to withstand the hit. By having sound defensive measures such as door gunners, you reduce the chances of that vulnerability from happening. I think most people on here can understand where I'm coming from with that statement. Sorry you can't.

Your comments on this forum are exuding more and more arrogance all the time. I used to respect your opinion on matters along with guys like Bob G and John C but now I see it has nothing to do with educating with you. It's all about the "burn". I made a simple observation on what I BELIEVED to be weaknesses with the design based on my combat experience. Instead of being tactful and giving your experience in the matter 20 yrs ago, you chose comments to brag about your involvement in the aircraft and my lack of involvement. Comments that don't reflect the professionalism that a former commissioned officer should have. At any rate, I'm done here.

 

[nauga]

So in an aircraft like the v22 how do the controls work? Is it a yoke or does it have a cyclic and collective like a helicopter

Center stick for pitch and roll, pedals for yaw just like helicopters and airplanes. Throttle (AKA "Blottle" ) has the same motion as an airplane throttle but performs the same function as the collective in helicopter mode, same as a throttle in airplane mode. Nacelle angle is controlled by a thumbwheel on the throttle. There were careers made and unmade over the throttle/collective functionality.

Nauga,
back in the day

 

[Henning]

Center stick for pitch and roll, pedals for yaw just like helicopters and airplanes. Throttle (AKA "Blottle" ) has the same motion as an airplane throttle but performs the same function as the collective in helicopter mode, same as a throttle in airplane mode. Nacelle angle is controlled by a thumbwheel on the throttle. There were careers made and unmade over the throttle/collective functionality.

Nauga,
back in the day

I bet, it looks like they did okay.

 

[C.M. Davis]

Hello gentlemen. New to the board and interested in the pre-flight check list they have to perform.
Am writing a novel involving their use in a SF op. Which I understand they are planning on using them for along with other roles. This scene would be the dialogue between Pilot and Co-Pilot before they take off from a flat top.
Thanks for any help/advice. C.M. Davis

 

[Jimmy cooper]

It's easy to research this flying Wurlitzer since its inception. It was a bone thrown to the marines who pouted that they did not have an aircraft for their " special needs". So was born this many splendored pipe organ which has seen many cost over runs, many accidents, people killed, etc. It has flown mainly under very carefully prescribed conditions. In actual combat it would be a disaster. Very unstable when landing, likes to turn upside down due to tremendous rotor wash, big and cumbersome, lots of noise, won't carry much and has a tremendous cost not only in original cost per unit but in maintenance which is intense and very expensive. Easy to read up on this lobbyists dream. Coupled with the F35, it's no wonder we are in so much debt.

 

[nauga]

This scene would be the dialogue between Pilot and Co-Pilot before they take off from a flat top.

You'll won't get much here. Try baseops.net or hunt down a PAO at MCAS New River.

Nauga,
with batteries to power and turbines to speed

 

[C.M. Davis]

Thanks Mantis. Will look into that route.