Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Squadron Photos Of V-22s Deployed To Iraq  
User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4405 times:

Great series of photos of the V-22s deployed to Iraq as well as honest facts and commentary regarding the aircrafts capability.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1927157/posts

Have fun,

CTR

[Edited 2007-11-20 18:43:09]


Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29784 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4379 times:

I love the posting where the one guy says he has books that said the F-15 was a waste of money and the F-16 was ruined when it was decided to put a radar in the sucker.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4213 times:

Thanks for the post CTR , Nice shots and information. At this years airshow @ DM here in Tucson I had the chance to talk with a Marine pilot at the Osprey display. As I would assume he did not have anything bad to say about the aircraft other than the early development pains. I did not ask the pilot to many questions , but he seemed pretty gung ho about it. I would assume he is flying somewhere in Iraq today..

I am not a combat pilot , but to me these highly complex software balanced aircraft worry me. Hell its hard enough to keep 737's flying. Imagine how complex the V22 is for maintenance . How redundant are flyby wire and software driven subsystems and how they stand up to 37mm penetrations remains to be seen I guess.

All and all I think the aircraft is bad ass and the technology has to start somewhere.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineN74jw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4066 times:

Great shots! Thanks for sharing...

User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3999 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting AGM100 (Reply 2):
to me these highly complex software balanced aircraft worry me

Well, since the F-16 would fall out of the sky without computers stabilizing the airplane and it's been in combat since 1976 or so I'd say they're doing ok. It's a worthwhile concern, but take a good look at the true numbers.

What many insiders seem to be concerned about is the power transfer and transmission systems on this particular aircraft. But I guess we'll see.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 2):
How redundant are flyby wire and software driven subsystems

Pretty. They're standard these days, and I'd say that an airplane that loses FBW could have just as easily lost hydraulics.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 2):
I think the aircraft is bad ass and the technology has to start somewhere.

Agreed....and I think it started with the digital F-8 Crusader experimental and went from there.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 1):
I love the posting where the one guy says he has books that said the F-15 was a waste of money and the F-16 was ruined when it was decided to put a radar in the sucker.

Ah....an expert author! You gotta love the flat-earthers. Great content on the thread there, though....



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3846 times:



Quoting L-188 (Reply 1):
I love the posting where the one guy says he has books that said the F-15 was a waste of money and the F-16 was ruined when it was decided to put a radar in the sucker.

Reading that posting, I noted he didn't appear to agree with what was said about the F-15 or F-16. His point was there were people who did have that opinion. Apparently there were those who wanted the F-16 to be a plain and simple air-to-air machine, little allowing for the fact the airplane was meant to be a swing role airplane from the beginning. And the F-15's combat performance clearly indicates it was definitely not a waste of money. I think you'll agree that the F-16 wasn't ruined ... far too many nations ordered and now fly the airplane and we don't hear them complaining!  Smile



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineIwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3644 times:

That all quadrant gatling gun is must!  yes 

I just can't see this thing being safe with only a 50 cal gun that some dude has to squat down and aim without even a bench!  no  The way the thing is set up now, there is no way to defend from the sides, which is just dumb.

iwok


User currently offlineCurt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3601 times:



Quoting Iwok (Reply 6):
I just can't see this thing being safe with only a 50 cal gun that some dude has to squat down and aim without even a bench! The way the thing is set up now, there is no way to defend from the sides, which is just dumb

"Squatting down" is exactly how US forces fire all ramp mounted weapons from all our helicopters...and it's better to kneel than to squat for greater stability...I'ts not a bad way to shoot, or the services wouldn't be doing this for the last 40 years.


User currently offlineDragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3552 times:



Quoting Iwok (Reply 6):
That all quadrant gatling gun is must!

I just can't see this thing being safe with only a 50 cal gun that some dude has to squat down and aim without even a bench! The way the thing is set up now, there is no way to defend from the sides, which is just dumb.

iwok

That all axis gun is worthless during the landing phase because it has to be stowed. Landing and stopped on deck is when the aircraft is in the most danger, because its slow and big and loud.

The ramp mounted weapon the Osprey has now is probably the best option they have, and will probably remain the only weapon for some time (by the way it is a M240 which is .30cal and a medium machine gun, not heavy like the picture captions state). At least until one gets shot down. It too has problems though, and not just the fact it can only cover the rear. I can tell you as a former CH-46 crew chief and door gunner that a tail gun would have been the most effective weapon for most enroute threats. In fact we took an extra crewman with a M240 lying prone on the ramp when we flew into areas we deemed high threat.

The problem is that landing phase though... thats where you as a helicopter are most vulnerable. Typically you are nose high slowing down, that ramp gun is no good pointing at the ground. Once you have landed, you have to get the weapon out of the way to off/onload your passengers/cargo effectively, otherwise you are spending longer in the LZ than needed, and thats not good. In the third picture it looks like they have a type of mount that allows them to swivel the weapon and clear the ramp. Im not sure how it works, but if it swivels into the aircraft, that leaves you no weapon for suppression while you are sitting in the LZ. If it swivels out you are taking your crewman and having him stand off the back of the aircraft in the LZ, not a terribly bad option. If the threat is on the opposite side of the aircraft that the weapon is mounted though... your passengers are running through your firing lane to offload. Again, not a good thing.



Phrogs Phorever
User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3526 times:



Quoting DL021 (Reply 4):
Well, since the F-16 would fall out of the sky without computers stabilizing the airplane and it's been in combat since 1976 or so I'd say they're doing ok. It's a worthwhile concern, but take a good look at the true numbers.

Agreed , however my concern is the operation in the sand and dirt with bullets zinging though the fuselage. Again I have never been their , but have read about Black hawks , Huey's leaving LZ's with fuel and hyd leaking out and daylight streaming in...

Another bothersome thing about the aircraft , looking at the side profile from say a enemy gunners view. The engine provides a huge target sticking out their. I hope their is a good bit of armour on the outboard sides of the engine nacelle.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 4):
What many insiders seem to be concerned about is the power transfer and transmission systems

Looking at the 30" cutaway drawing on my wall of the Osprey... the drive gearbox and transmission system looks hugely complex (duh). Curious how the aircraft would operate with 1 engine out looks pretty harry to me.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3517 times:



Quoting AGM100 (Reply 9):
Agreed , however my concern is the operation in the sand and dirt with bullets zinging though the fuselage. Again I have never been their , but have read about Black hawks , Huey's leaving LZ's with fuel and hyd leaking out and daylight streaming in...

I never had a hit to the hydraulics. I only know a select few who have. The hydraulics are located right above the pilots and door gunner's heads. A rather small target, and with the numerous built in redundancies... it is one of our most reliable systems. The same goes for fuel leaks. The tanks are durable and self sealing. The areas I always worried about was the crew cabin, cockpit or any flight control mechanical parts, such as the drive shaft, or anything to do with the main and tail rotors.

From personal experience, most damage occurs in the tail. Mostly because Iraqis cannot shoot for shit. They aim for the cockpit, but fail to lead their target, so the bullets end up in the tail... which is just a hollow frame.

I know a few people mentioned we rarely go into "hot LZs" anymore, which is fairly true. We are pretty good at employing CAS, and indirect fire, to prep the LZs before landing. But there were numerous times I went into LZs, which were called ICE, but started taking fire as soon as we got there.

The CH-47s have only tail guns, and because of that and their size, they are not sent into dangerous areas. They primarily fly at night and to-and-from secure locations. I don't know if I would want to be in a fire fight and not have that side protection offered by the door guns.

-UH60


User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3502 times:



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 10):
From personal experience, most damage occurs in the tail. Mostly because Iraqis cannot shoot for shit. They aim for the cockpit, but fail to lead their target, so the bullets end up in the tail... which is just a hollow frame.

Guess that Black-hawk tail is pretty well designed , thats good news.

So I guess the idea will be to use the Osprey like the CH-47 ? Flying special ops and keeping them out of hot LZ 's ? I guess thats cool , except the damn thing costs enough it should do it all .

Any plans to fly the V-22 UH ? Could you transition ?



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineCurt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3459 times:



Quoting AGM100 (Reply 9):
Agreed , however my concern is the operation in the sand and dirt with bullets zinging though the fuselage. Again I have never been their , but have read about Black hawks , Huey's leaving LZ's with fuel and hyd leaking out and daylight streaming in...

It might be useful to remember the V-22, like all military acft undergo a series of extensive live fire tests to evaluate both the airframe and dynamic components (drive train etc), and the V-22 had to pass the same (if not more stringent) criteria as the acft you called out above.

Any acft runs the risk of the "golden BB" but modern acft like the V-22 built with positive safe separation of systems and elimination of single point failures by means of triple redundancy should fair as survivable as any of other legacy machines....of course one way or the other, time will tell.


User currently offlineIwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3427 times:



Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 8):
That all axis gun is worthless during the landing phase because it has to be stowed. Landing and stopped on deck is when the aircraft is in the most danger, because its slow and big and loud.

Good point which I never considered. From what I read, it seems as though the tail gunner was an after thought and Boeing was mostly concerned about payload/range in the design phase. I would have though that side protection is must, but there seems to be no option unless the all axis gun can be modified to not have to retract during landing.

Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 8):
The problem is that landing phase though... thats where you as a helicopter are most vulnerable. Typically you are nose high slowing down, that ramp gun is no good pointing at the ground. Once you have landed, you have to get the weapon out of the way to off/onload your passengers/cargo effectively, otherwise you are spending longer in the LZ than needed, and thats not good.

Also a good point which an armchair dude like myself would not have thought about. I think you are correct that it a V22 goes down due to a lack of protective fire, expect action to replace the 30 cal tail gun with something more useful. Trouble is that the additional ammo will have a negative effect on the mission profiles.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 10):
I don't know if I would want to be in a fire fight and not have that side protection offered by the door guns.

I agree with you on that.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 12):
and the V-22 had to pass the same (if not more stringent) criteria as the acft you called out above.

It don't matter what the Mil Spec is. Mil Spec certification always yields wavers and modifications and if one is not careful the final product can be worthless. Just like the Stryker which everyone knew could not withstand RPG rounds, yet is was built and certified, and now wears an exterior "fence" for protection, or like the Hummers which everyone knew had issues with APR and mines, yet they were built, certified and shipped, only now to be replaced with the mine resistant vehicles.

iwok


User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3395 times:



Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 8):
The problem is that landing phase though... thats where you as a helicopter are most vulnerable. Typically you are nose high slowing down, that ramp gun is no good pointing at the ground.

But the V-22 is not a helicopter. The V-22 is a Tiltrotor and has the capability to tilt the nacelles back to slow down and maintain the fuselage at a much more level pitch angle than a conventional helicopter.

At air shows the V-22 and it's little brother the BA609 demonstrate this capability. As part of the finale they often hover steady while bowing the the fuselage up and down.

Have fun,

CTR



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
User currently offlineCTR From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2977 times:

V-22 reaches 2,000 flight hours including some in combat...

Have fun,

CTR

"Pretty Pleased" With Osprey in Iraq: The Marine Corps sent the MV-22 Osprey to Iraq last fall, as promised, for the aircraft's first combat deployment, but news of the tilt-rotor's performance has been muted for a reason, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway told the Defense Writers Group Feb. 1. "We have not wanted to over promise and under deliver with regards to this first Osprey deployment," Conway said, adding that the Corps has tried to minimize the amount of news being generated about the aircraft until the deployment winds down. There will be a full after-action report from the initial deployment, Conway said. "I will tell you in the interim that we are pretty pleased with what we're seeing," he added. At just over the halfway point, the Osprey force, intended to replace the heavy-lift CH-46s and medium-lift CH-53Ds, has racked up more than 2,000 hours in combat, evacuation, mobility, and other missions—and has been shot at, Conway said. Readiness rates have gone up to around 75 percent in theater after some early supply chain issues with slip rings kept several aircraft grounded in the early going.

http://206.204.189.217/AFA/Reports/2008/Month02/Day04/



Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Squadron Photos Of V-22s Deployed To Iraq
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Unable To Take Photos Of US Miltary Planes posted Sun Oct 14 2001 03:58:10 by Kiwi dave
Classic Photos Of NAS North Island posted Sat Feb 19 2005 01:05:18 by 747400sp
Photos Of Doomsday Plane? posted Tue Feb 8 2005 18:27:43 by JetBlast
U.S.A.F. Deployments To Iraq & Afghan posted Wed Dec 29 2004 16:46:50 by CX747
Change Of Airframe From C-5 To Kc-10. posted Mon Nov 8 2004 15:03:20 by Galaxy5
Rumsfeld Takes "doomsday Plane" To Iraq/Kuwait posted Thu May 13 2004 23:00:58 by SQ452
How Does The Military Get To Iraq? posted Thu May 13 2004 08:54:23 by FunFlyer
Photos Of KE-3A posted Sat Oct 26 2002 10:08:22 by Cheshire
Canada To Get A Fleet Of UAVs posted Sun Oct 28 2007 12:26:17 by FighterPilot
Report: Third Of RAF Bomber Sqns "To Be Culled" posted Sun Oct 7 2007 11:19:25 by RC135U

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format