Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:38 pm

Okay, for those that don't know, the new V-22 Osprey cannot mount even the two .50 cals on it's side that it's predecessor CH-46 can, and the talk of making some kind of remote mini-gun turret on the nose was cut because, well you guessed it - budget setbacks in the program. Since the only other available spot would be the rear ramp, that obviously won't work too well if you want and hope of a quick egress of your payload.

Am I the only one who sees the new V-22 Osprey coming online minus absolutely ZERO defensive weapons a relatively braindead move for what will be the backbone of Marine aviation in the medium lift helo community, as well as the USAF who are specifically using it for SPECOPS?

Did anyone else see those Vietnam movies that made door gunners infamous, and dare I say paramount to any insertion into enemy LZ's?

I've read where some smart Marine General (Either the Commandant or the LtGen. of the Air Wing) was talking about them wanting to make special gunship versions of the Osprey down the road. Ahhh, then why in the world is the Marine corps spending the money to rebuild their aged fleet of H-1 helos and make the AH-1Z? As great as that extra speed of the Osprey is, it's still going to have to wait for the traditional rotary-winged attack helos for fire support, especially since they won't be slinging any fire suppression for themselves.

What the bloody hell will it do you if the only thing the Osprey gives you is a little more top speed - so what if your the first on scene... to be shot down that is?!
 
dc1030guy
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 8:21 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Mon Jul 04, 2005 12:36 am

Well, the Marine Corps has done everything it could to speed the Osprey into production, including lieing during the initial testing phases. It wouldn't surprise me if this was an after thought.

Perhaps as you stated, the Osprey will have to wait until an area is cleared before it can land and deliver its cargo.

pat
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Mon Jul 04, 2005 2:09 am

It's alot more topspeed, and the ability to ingress and egress more rapidly with a larger load.

They will have to figure out a way to arm them, but they will need escorts anyway and they will send in the snakes earlier without as much need for armed escorts on the way in, so the snakes can prep the lz and cover the dropoff/pickups.

The whole thing will be faster, and BTW, you can always put a couple of door gunners on the ramp or side door who will be able to fire when the rotors are in the vertical lift mode.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Mon Jul 04, 2005 2:28 am

Speed Kills... that ability to get in and out in a VERY timely fashion helps a LOT. But if your really worried, I'm sure there are some AC-130 guys who'd be happy to help..
This space intentionally left blank
 
AGM114L
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:12 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Mon Jul 04, 2005 2:57 am

Unarmed and unafraid. I think the V-22 would be an excellent special ops aircraft.
How would the V-22 fly single engine? Does it autorotate well?
My Boeing can blow up your Boeing
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:05 am

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 4):
How would the V-22 fly single engine? Does it autorotate well?

It's got a driveshaft between the two engines and is designed to be able to fly on just one engine for short periods of time, perhaps some sort of auto rotation as well I am not sure.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 2):
It's alot more topspeed, and the ability to ingress and egress more rapidly with a larger load.

More payload compared to what, the figures of a 1950's design H-46 that have already been reduced in half due to age and wear?!

The sad fact of the matter is that the Marines simply did not need the Osprey and were irresponsible for forcing the issue. For the money wasted simply developing the aircraft they could have bought an entire fleet two times over of conventional modern rotary winged replacement aircraft such as the MH-60S, H-92, or the new US-101 and now as the Osprey is about to be cleared to enter service, we still have to spend $70m a pop on what is the most numerous aircraft platform in the Marines inventory!

I certainly remember from my time in the Marines working on Phrogs that we prided ourselves on making due with less and relying upon tried and true platforms. The Osprey goes against this grain and while it's too late to turn back now, I still would like to see some of the medium lift squads get MH-60S or US-101's - partly because I'd like to see the Osprey's pride get the blow it deserves, and partly because I don't want to rely upon a gimmick when other very capable and modern equipment can accomplish the mission just fine.

I find it hypocritically ironic how the US Navy re-worded their parameters on what they expected the range of the Super Hornet to be and when they realized it did not have the long range that the GE Toms and Intruders had, they simply said "no biggie" and moved the carriers closer to shore to compensate for this, but when the issue for the Marines and the Gator Navy came up, they said they wanted to be able to stay farther off shore and they needed the Osprey and its speed for that purpose.

You want speed, buy a jet fighter or go watch Airwolf. If you want the job done and done correctly, you go with what works. There is a reason why the Army unlike the Marines are not trading off their medium lift H-60's for V-22's.
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4961
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Mon Jul 04, 2005 9:10 am

The down-wash is so much bigger on the V-22 than a "traditional" helo, so no guns are needed Wink
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
AGM114L
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:12 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Mon Jul 04, 2005 2:02 pm

Here is National Defense Industrial Associations (NDIA) idea for arming the V-22:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002gun/depasqual.pdf

Granted they seem like a crackpot special interest group but hey I think it would be awesome to have a nose-mounted turret of three .50 cals that's connected to either the FLIR sensor or pilot's helmet. The only issue is the poor visibility from the cockpit for sighting the weapon.
My Boeing can blow up your Boeing
 
VS74741R
Posts: 263
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:54 am

Why have .50 cal machine guns when you can have an escort from a couple of AH-1s  biggrin 
Obviously a Virgin Atlantic fan!!!
 
AGM114L
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:12 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:04 am

Quoting VS74741R (Reply 8):
Why have .50 cal machine guns when you can have an escort from a couple of AH-1s

The AH-1's max cruise speed is 157kts compared to the V-22's 275kts with twice the range. The AH-1s probably wouldn't do to well in escorting the V-22. A Harrier may be able to provide better security though.
My Boeing can blow up your Boeing
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:31 am

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 7):
Granted they seem like a crackpot special interest group but hey I think it would be awesome to have a nose-mounted turret of three .50 cals that's connected to either the FLIR sensor or pilot's helmet. The only issue is the poor visibility from the cockpit for sighting the weapon.

This was originally planned but somewhere along the way after one of the numerous financial setbacks the program created, the bean counters said find a way to cut back or the program will be cancelled. Even then, who and from where is the turrent going to be manned by? Crew Chief or Co-Pilot?

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 9):
The AH-1's max cruise speed is 157kts compared to the V-22's 275kts with twice the range. The AH-1s probably wouldn't do to well in escorting the V-22. A Harrier may be able to provide better security though.

This is exactly the point - how could this platform be continued to allow reprieve after reprieve when its obvious the Marines and their budget should not be paving these new types of frontiers. And why is the Corps allowed to upgrade their AH-1Z attack helos when they have clearly signalled their interest in traditional rotary winged flight is all but over?

If this was the US Army mind you who has the largest budget to work with, and they were convinved that tilt-rotor was the way to go, than that's another story. But for the Marines to invest so heavily to the point of neglect into the tilt rotor technology borders on narcissism.
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Tue Jul 05, 2005 5:30 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 5):
I certainly remember from my time in the Marines working on Phrogs that we prided ourselves on making due with less and relying upon tried and true platforms. The Osprey goes against this grain and while it's too late to turn back now, I still would like to see some of the medium lift squads get MH-60S or US-101's - partly because I'd like to see the Osprey's pride get the blow it deserves, and partly because I don't want to rely upon a gimmick when other very capable and modern equipment can accomplish the mission just fine.

The requirements for an aircraft with the V-22's capabilities were set down 30 years ago after President Carter’s hostage rescue debacle. Today using V-22s, the mission could be accomplished without the need for establishing a desert base for refueling. No other fielded aircraft can say this.

For the near term AV-8B Harriers can provide both escort and ground support. During recent V-22 OPEVAL both aircraft worked in unison successfully off the USS Bataan. In the future the F-35 or a proposed BA609 gunship may be used.

The Army pulled out of the V-22 program 20 years ago because it had to make a choice between the Comanche or the Osprey. Today the Army is closely watching V-22 OPEVAL results for a possible reversal of their decision.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 5):
I find it hypocritically ironic how the US Navy re-worded their parameters on what they expected the range of the Super Hornet to be and when they realized it did not have the long range that the GE Toms and Intruders had, they simply said "no biggie" and moved the carriers closer to shore to compensate for this, but when the issue for the Marines and the Gator Navy came up, they said they wanted to be able to stay farther off shore and they needed the Osprey and its speed for that purpose.

The F-18 E/F Hornet is a compromise between a Fighter and a Bomber. It is not as fast as a F-14 and cannot carry the payload of the venerable truck of an A-6. But it can still perform both missions exceptionally well. Modern advances in air to air and air to ground munitions have decreased the importance of speed and payload. The E/F shorter legs are not an issue with air to air refueling. E/Fs are also performing as tankers allowing F-18s to refuel F-18s. All points for mission flexibility go to the F-18 E/F.

Part of the reason the E/F shorter legs is that designers had to compromise range for radar stealth. Stealth does not come for free in either weight or aerodynamic efficiency. The Navy was not hypocritical as you state, they were just flexible with their requirements.
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
 
echster
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:01 pm

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 pm

Does it autorotate well? My answer would be it doesn't autorotate at all. It has technically performed an autorotation under very limited standards. This plane and program are pieces of sh*t! IMHO, if this program weren't based in Texas, it would have been cancelled years ago. I consider the author of this link to be knowledgable on the V-22. He was a USMC officer and has many contacts throughout the military. Here were some problems noted with the V-22....many to go unfixed.

http://www.g2mil.com/V-22safety.htm
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Tue Jul 05, 2005 10:11 pm

Quoting Echster (Reply 12):
Does it autorotate well? My answer would be it doesn't autorotate at all. It has technically performed an autorotation under very limited standards.

Does the V-22 autorotate as well as older military single engine or early twin engine helicopters? No, but the autorotation capabilities of the Apache, H-60 and CH-53 are not any thing to brag about either. The new S-92 last I heard has never been autorotation flight test with both engines suddenly cut to idle and taken all the way to the ground. Computer simulations instead were used to support FAA certification. The same as was done with the V-22 to support their autorotation capability. With all these aircraft, you may walk away from an autorotation landing, but the aircraft may be a total write off.

Older helicopters had high inertia blades made of metal and less than reliable turbine engines.

Modern helicopters have composite blades that are lighter, stronger, aerodynamically optimized but with relatively low inertia. This has compromised their autorotation capability. This trade off is considered acceptable because with the high reliability of modern engines the probability of losing both engines is considered very low (i.e Boeing 777).

Quoting Echster (Reply 12):
This plane and program are pieces of sh*t! IMHO, if this program weren't based in Texas, it would have been cancelled years ago.

To late, the V-22 was already canceled once before 16 years ago by Bush I (a Texan). Bush I also canceled the A-12 Avenger A-6 replacement which was half built by a Texas company. Unlike the A-12 however the V-22 could not stay canceled. So maybe it has more going for it than just strong political representation.

Quoting Echster (Reply 12):
consider the author of this link to be knowledgable on the V-22

Knowledgable? Yes. But he is also very bias and selective in his facts. Much of the information is also dated and in a couple cases just wrong. I do not believe there is any malice intended by the author, but he is strong in his beliefs and is probably a strong advocate for Igor's company.
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
 
ruger11
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 4:20 pm

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:17 pm

Ok, I think the problem with mounting side weapons was the fact that in foward flight, with engines foward, you might hit the blades.... but you'd be going fast. When they rotate up, I bet you could clear them, just have a mechanical left lateral limit in the traverse mechanism... but granted it is reduced firepower, so I digress

We have always made do with less, you're right, but the point is in recent conflicts we've been asked to do more than "Hit the beach" or travel <100miles into a country... we're operating in and out of countries >1000 miles from the nearest sea platform, using multiple FARPS and aerial refueling more than ever. Pushing the CH-53 beyond it's limit in Afghanistan in the mountains... (you think it's powerful and has a long range? Check recent reports of how long it can operate, and how much payload it can carry in the mountains... it's severely reduced) The -46 is WAAAAAY past replacement.

The V-22 program is a realistic need for our Corps, I believe... however I also thenk something along the lines of the H-101 or whatnot should have been aquired a few years back, if nothing more than a stopgap or interim solution.

Yes the ARMY has a much larger budget than us, but they also have 1,000's of tanks, APCS, etc etc. they need a huge budget. The needs now are for a lighter, mobile easier to deploy "package" type unit. I.E. a MEU/MEB/MEF etc. The army is doing similar things with it's stryker units as far as organization is concerned. Just google "Distributed operations" and you'll seethe need for a V-22 type capability.

Well I'm off the soapbox.
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:10 am

Quoting CTR (Reply 13):
the V-22 was already canceled once before 16 years ago by Bush I (a Texan). Bush I also canceled the A-12 Avenger A-6 replacement which was half built by a Texas company

That was SECDEF Cheney under Bush 41. He also cut the F-14D program at the same time and its a damned shame if not a criminal act of treason the program revived was the Osprey and not the Tomcat. Your #1 Dick!  bigthumbsup 

Quoting Ruger11 (Reply 14):
The -46 is WAAAAAY past replacement.



The Marines should have replaced the H-46's after Desert Storm with what the US Navy is now replacing their H-46's with - an upgraded MH-60S Blackhawk series helicopter like every other entire branch of government uses! The Marines have no business developing aircraft - leave that to the budgets and know-how of the Air Force and if need be the Navy. The Marines simply should only be allowed to use what is available from the other branches parts box; either that or get the Marines out from the puppet strings of the Navy and lets get their own chair (and budget) at the Pentagon.

Quoting Ruger11 (Reply 14):
The V-22 program is a realistic need for our Corps, I believe... however I also think something along the lines of the H-101 or whatnot should have been acquired a few years back, if nothing more than a stopgap or interim solution.

That's my beef - they should have waited another generation when they could have developed an entire Wing of tilt-rotor aircraft because integrating one into the wing doesn't do you a whole lot when your attack helos and heavy lift 53's are still operating by the confines of rotary winged flight. The Marines now are so intelligently pursuing upgrades to the AH-1Z when they have already said they want armed gunship tilt-rotors to keep up with the V-22's. Let's face it, the Marines really duped the political leaders on this one.

The Osprey is nothing but a chimerical aspiration pitted against stubborn ignorance from one Commandant to the other since Krulak. But the Marines began snubbing their nose at reality back when they sought out the Harrier.

The USMC never even needed the Harrier a.k.a. the Lawn Dart as they would have been and still would be just fine using USN carrier based aircraft from large carriers. While the AH-1Z will finally have a decent payload compared to the Apache, if the Marines just had a decent attack helo there would never have been a need for Harriers in the first place.

Working alongside of the Harriers on the 26th MEU in Kosovo those POS's had trouble getting single CBU's to pickle over Albania and when we went inland to Skopje, the allies told the US that there was no room for those USMC Harriers and so they went to Israel for workups, where they had a nice 6 week standdown while they had an engine recall and had to tear down and visually inspect every engine for a cotter pin the FNG at the RR plant forgot to install. The reason they didn't want the Harriers in Kosovo was because they were not worth their ramp space!

Basically, IF the F-35B is not needed to replace the Harrier because the Harrier was nothing ever substantial enough in the Marines inventory to necessitate a replacement! The Marines should have and still should buy Block II or III F/A-18F's just like the USN uses but they are really getting away from their "core" philosophies of late with substantial wastes of what they are starting to act like is an infinite amount of money.

Quoting Ruger11 (Reply 14):
The needs now are for a lighter, mobile easier to deploy "package" type unit. I.E. a MEU/MEB/MEF etc. The army is doing similar things with it's stryker units as far as organization is concerned. Just google "Distributed operations" and you'll seethe need for a V-22 type capability.

The Army will soon be getting out of the Stryker platforms all together as they have seen how lousy a replacement for armor they are in Iraq. The only time the LAV-25's are any good are when your not using them like you would a MBT. We don't need the V-22 we just need a better plan, and too many stubborn Flag officers and their greasy lobbyists are responsible for this illicit program to continue to stay alive.
 
JohnM
Posts: 401
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:25 am

It was my understanding that the Osprey could NOT autorotate. I can assure you that the UH-60 does. I think if the USMC leadership really thought this one out, they should make a decision to stop the V-22 program now. The Army made a good choice to drop the RAH-66 and put the money to something they could really use. I've seen the UH-60 operate in some hot, heavy, harsh and nasty enviroments in Iraq, and it is one hell of a great helicopter. Not too big, not too small. Gets the job done every day here. If the Marines got some -60s and possibly the S-92 or US-101, they would really have something then. I would really hate to hover into some lovely spot in Iraq without a proper door gun system. The M-240H does make one feel much better about situations like that!
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:09 am

Quoting CTR (Reply 13):
Does the V-22 autorotate as well as older military single engine or early twin engine helicopters? No, but the autorotation capabilities of the Apache, H-60 and CH-53 are not any thing to brag about either. The new S-92 last I heard has never been autorotation flight test with both engines suddenly cut to idle and taken all the way to the ground. Computer simulations instead were used to support FAA certification. The same as was done with the V-22 to support their autorotation capability. With all these aircraft, you may walk away from an autorotation landing, but the aircraft may be a total write off.

I have quoted myself for clarity. But maybe fewer words would be better.

Can a V-22 autorotate? Yes

Will the decent rate be survivable by the crew? Yes

Will a fully loaded V-22 be heavily damaged in a autorotation landing? Yes

Has an actual (not in a simulator) autorotation landing ever been performed in a Tiltrotor? Yes, the XV-15.

Will a fully loaded Apache, H-60 or CH-53 be heavily damaged in a autorotation landing? Yes.
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
 
AGM114L
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:12 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:51 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 15):
The Marines have no business developing aircraft - leave that to the budgets and know-how of the Air Force and if need be the Navy. The Marines simply should only be allowed to use what is available from the other branches parts box

This is my opinion of Marines' Doctrine: Do not be like the Army.

I don't know if its some JarHead mentality or not but they want nothing to do with the Army, even if the Army has established better methods, equipment, e.c.t...
What's the Marines adversity with the H-60?, you think they would have switched long ago. They have a dozen of them in their HMX VIP fleet but that's it. I don't what they are thinking with the upgraded UH-1Y, sure the Huey has proven its self one of the greatest military aircraft of all time, but the H-60 fleet is the future.
The AH-1Z will no doubt be a fine attack helicopter, but why not go with the AH-64D? Now I'm more aware than anyone with the Apache's shortcomings but the AH-1Z seems like a very similar package. Yes, the AH-1Z may have less bugs but its still an old airframe. Having skids instead of wheels affects the hot and heavy performance and survivability for that matter.
I can understand a stubborn grunt in the Marine Corp, but such stubbornness at such high levels seems like a systemic problem to me.
Being that said, I have nothing but love for the Corp. I've worked with them several times and they are the finest soldiers in the world.
My Boeing can blow up your Boeing
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:16 am

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 18):
They have a dozen of them in their HMX VIP fleet but that's it.

They have 8 and they are very cramped for that role. I assume that H-60 simply deemed too small for the replacement of the medium lift H-46 fleet, but certainly H-60's should have replaced the small role that the UH-1N/Y play in the Corps.


Quoting AGM114L (Reply 18):
Being that said, I have nothing but love for the Corp. I've worked with them several times and they are the finest soldiers in the world.

I wholeheartidly agree - my love for the Corps stems from my time served in the Corps working on their Phrogs, as well as losing a damned good Marine buddy in a workup exercise in an H-46 when he should have been crewing a US-101 based platform but the stubborn ones that be keep on fighting for the Osprey.

http://ch149.no-ip.org:8080/coppermine/albums/04_10_04/screenshot26.jpg
I don't want or advocate the total cancellation of the Osprey program because at this point we've come too far and spent too much money, but I do want the buy cut in half and a more traditional rotary winged helo (US-101) to fill the gap. It's all about the big picture - the Corps could have had 3 US-101's for ever current CH-46E when all is said and done for the amount of money spent/wasted on the Osprey program combined with the inflated increases in what will be the final per unit buy amount.
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:29 am

The US101/EH101 is an excellent aircraft. I also commend your open mind for ignoring the barrage of Sikorsky negative press that was spewed out in their attempt to have the S-92 selected as the presidential transport over thr US101.

The money spent by the DOD on developing tiltrotor technology should not be considered as solely a V-22 expense. This investment is already being applied to the Eagle Eye UAV and the BA609 commuter aircraft. In the near future it may also be used to meet the Joint Heavy Lift requirement with a Quad Tiltrotor.

No more preaching. Instead to see photos of the future of US Marine Aviation go to: http://www.bataan.navy.mil/gallery.htm

These are real photos taken of the USS Bataan last month, not computer doctored images.
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:04 pm

Quoting CTR (Reply 20):
The US101/EH101 is an excellent aircraft. I also commend your open mind for ignoring the barrage of Sikorsky negative press that was spewed out in their attempt to have the S-92 selected as the presidential transport over thr US101.

Sikorsky makes an excellent aircraft but the US-101 just makes a lot of sense. With all that near heavy-lift that it provides for combined with all the modern sophistication, I also really like that able to be certified for single pilot use.

Quoting CTR (Reply 20):
The money spent by the DOD on developing tiltrotor technology should not be considered as solely a V-22 expense. This investment is already being applied to the Eagle Eye UAV and the BA609 commuter aircraft. In the near future it may also be used to meet the Joint Heavy Lift requirement with a Quad Tiltrotor.

That's a very good point and basically what I am advocating - such an endeavor should never have been approved on what the Marines are forced to make due with. Even the Spruce Goose got off the ground with enough time and money, but was it the most fiscally responsible endeavor? Answer no.

Quoting CTR (Reply 20):
No more preaching. Instead to see photos of the future of US Marine Aviation go to: http://www.bataan.navy.mil/gallery.htm

These are real photos taken of the USS Bataan last month, not computer doctored images.

I remember hearing that the V-22's heat from the vertically posistioned port engine when landing would melt the straps off the lifeboat canisters on the port side of the ship and set them off, I wonder how large a problem this was and what they may have done to get around it.
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Thu Jul 14, 2005 1:52 pm

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 7):
Here is National Defense Industrial Associations (NDIA) idea for arming the V-22:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002gun/depasqual.pdf

Granted they seem like a crackpot special interest group but hey I think it would be awesome to have a nose-mounted turret of three .50 cals that's connected to either the FLIR sensor or pilot's helmet. The only issue is the poor visibility from the cockpit for sighting the weapon.

This is not at all a new idea. In ~ '87 at BoVer we did many "what if" studies. I personally spent a fair amount of time looking at the feasibility of the M230 Chain Gun regarding dynamic loads on the airframe and effects on natural frequencies and didn't find any real problems. Last I knew(waaay out of date) considerable space under the floor between the two main floor beams was reserved for this contingency.

Having worked on the V-22 I do have an emotional attachment to it and on this level am happy that it is still going. I do believe that given time the money put into this will be worth it if the tilt-rotor can become a viable alternative to traditional fixed and rotary wing aircraft. The early years of these types were very tough as well.

Realistically, the Marines should have had Boeing develop a production version of the Model 360. This semi-revolutionary approach would have provided a brdige to get them to a point where tilt-rotors were more mature. If you've never seen the 360, picture a CH-46 with composite fuselage, retractable gear, engines integrated in the fuselage, and 4 bladed rotors moving at 230 kts. The price couldn't be too awful as Boeing built this out of pocket as a technology demonstrator.

btw, first post on a.net after lurking for several months
Where are all of my respected members going?
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Fri Jul 15, 2005 3:38 am

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 22):
Having worked on the V-22 I do have an emotional attachment to it and on this level am happy that it is still going.

Having worked on and lost damned good friends with the CH-46E's that these Osprey were suppossed to have replaced years ago, I have quite an annoyed impression of the airframe. The Marines should have replaced the H-46's after Desert Storm with what turned into the MH-60S program or bit into what later became the US-101.

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 22):
I do believe that given time the money put into this will be worth it if the tilt-rotor can become a viable alternative to traditional fixed and rotary wing aircraft. The early years of these types were very tough as well.

And this is where I find flaw with the perspective that the US Marines take with the Osprey right now as well - if this is to be the case, then why spend the money upgrading the H-1's if your main medium lift platform is going to either outrun the gunship support or have to go the same slow speed as it's predecessor?!

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 22):
Realistically, the Marines should have had Boeing develop a production version of the Model 360. This semi-revolutionary approach would have provided a brdige to get them to a point where tilt-rotors were more mature. If you've never seen the 360, picture a CH-46 with composite fuselage, retractable gear, engines integrated in the fuselage, and 4 bladed rotors moving at 230 kts. The price couldn't be too awful as Boeing built this out of pocket as a technology demonstrator.

That's a great point of which I agree - the V-22 was cancelled in 1991 under SECDEF Cheney citing the tech was just not there yet and firmly believe that while the V-22 might be a good platform, it was simply one generation premature. With the budget the Marines get from the Navy they just had no business spending as much as they have on the Osprey when they had and have plenty of other needs.

Quote:

First flown in 1987 the Model 360 is a privately developed advanced technology rotorcraft, designed to research the company's other rotorcraft programs. The helicopter features advanced aerodynamics and extensive use of composite materials including the fuselage, rotor shafts, blades and hubs. Powered by twin Avco-Lycoming AL5512 engines (4200shp) the Model 360 has a 370km/h cruise speed. The aircraft's advanced cockpit features cathode ray tube displays, multi-function callouts, digital automatic flight control system and other improvements to reduce pilot workload.

P.Allen "The Helicopter", 1996




Look Ma, no landing wheels!




[Edited 2005-07-14 20:55:57]
 
drewfly
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:37 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Fri Jul 15, 2005 3:59 am

Sounds to me like the only platform that can realistically escort a V-22 into combat is.......the 'obsolete' A-10. Would go especially well in an all Air Force package with couple SEAL-filled CV-22s. The quietness of the A-10's turbofans plus the aircrafts range and battle tolerance would be well suited to the covert long range insertion missions the CV-22 is going to embark on.
A-10 Thunderbolt II, ugly as hell, efficient as hell, would you like to meet my boomstick?
 
LeanOfPeak
Posts: 496
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 2:18 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:58 am

Echster...The only thing I find puzzling is what political favors Clinton felt obliged to lend Texas...

Ruger: Gun synchronizers to shoot through props were developed in WWI. I would like to think we have not lost that capability. Granted, a turret that shoots through several portions in the blade's arc makes the problem more sophisticated, but the tools we have to deal with the problem are more sophisticated as well.
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:57 am

Don't forget that the Osprey sits awfully low on the ground with it's landing gear, unless the gun is somehow retracted up and inward its going to hit the ground. And even if you do somehow get the gun clearance figured out, such a turrett would be a maintenance nightmare and the workload of of one of the pilots attention diverted from the hot LZ might not be all that wise as well.
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:54 am

Two things to clarify regarding the last two posts:

1. The blades aren't the problem with door guns when you are landing, it's the nacelles. If you're shooting the blades then you are probably also shooting the wing when in helicopter mode. As far as synchronizing nearly parallel to the prop plane rather than normal to it like in old prop fighters, it would be very, very difficult. Even if somebody pulled it off, I don't think the pilots would like it.

2. When I was working on the V-22, my understanding was that only a relatively small percentage of aircraft would be equipped with the chain gun to enable them to clear LZs for other less heavily armed aircraft. If any troops were to be deployed from these aircraft, I would expect them to rope down allowing the gun to remain active. Also, ground clearance is more than most people think ~ 18" IIRC. Definitely not a lot of space but I would think doable.
Where are all of my respected members going?
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:26 pm

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 27):
Also, ground clearance is more than most people think ~ 18" IIRC. Definitely not a lot of space but I would think doable.

But the gun needs to go where the nose gear is in order to have the best firing arc while at low altitudes.

From what you mentioned before, if the space in the middle of the fuselage was left vacant intended for a gun, does this take the place of where the Osprey could otherwise use a hoist like the CH-46, or does the Osprey totally not replace the Phrog in this aspect?
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Sun Jul 17, 2005 7:28 am

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 22):
Realistically, the Marines should have had Boeing develop a production version of the Model 360. This semi-revolutionary approach would have provided a brdige to get them to a point where tilt-rotors were more mature. If you've never seen the 360, picture a CH-46 with composite fuselage, retractable gear, engines integrated in the fuselage, and 4 bladed rotors moving at 230 kts. The price couldn't be too awful as Boeing built this out of pocket as a technology demonstrator.

I spoke to some Boeing Philly friends about the 360 and is performance capability. Although it's top speed was impressive, the design suffered from some limitations that made it impractical for a V-22 substitute.

The interaction of flow between the tandem rotors at high forward velocities gulps fuel. At speed, the conventional tail rotor and side by side V-22 configuration are more fuel efficient.

Air to air refueling in a V-22 is a joy compared to a CH-53 due to its rotor position and speed. Air to air refuel in a CH-46 or 47? I shudder the thought.

Evasive maneuvering in helicopters causes severe flapping and lead-lag in the rotor blades. Having 4 bladed intermeshing rotors in the 360 versus the CH-46 3 blade rotors increased the chances of a blades hitting each other.

So as a commercial short haul high speed helicopter the 360 had promise. But not as a interim substitute for the V-22.

Take care,

CTR
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Sun Jul 17, 2005 10:10 am

Quoting CTR (Reply 29):
Air to air refueling in a V-22 is a joy compared to a CH-53 due to its rotor position and speed. Air to air refuel in a CH-46 or 47? I shudder the thought.

That aircraft/platform has no need for aerial refueling - that's what C-130 and C-17's are for.

Quoting CTR (Reply 29):
So as a commercial short haul high speed helicopter the 360 had promise. But not as a interim substitute for the V-22.

But the Corps could have bought 3-4 MH-60S or US-101 aircraft for every H-46 airframe that they have for as much money as they have ended up investing into the Osprey just to get to this point - and just now do the Marines get to pay for the 400 or so they want to buy.

The V-22 Osprey was simply not a wise investment no matter how fast it outflies it's gunship support.

I keep hearing about people wanting to cut the F-22 but those same bean counters have never tried cutting V-22 numbers?!
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Sun Jul 17, 2005 10:57 am

AirRyan,

I was addressing specifically the Boeing 360 as an alternative to the V-22 as was suggested by BHMBAGLOCK. Air to air is a requirement for the V-22 as it is for the CH-53. For the CH-46 and similar tandem helicopters, it will always be a shortfall.

The tandem rotor configuration of the CH-46 is good for heavy lift, but it has range limitations.

That said, you are correct that the V-22 still needs faster gunship support.

Take care,

CTR
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2177
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Sun Jul 17, 2005 1:39 pm

I've seen MH-47's with a refueling probe/boom sticking out of the front for air to air refueling. May not be ideal, but it does happen.
 
LMP737
Posts: 6227
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:19 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 23):
The Marines should have replaced the H-46's after Desert Storm with what turned into the MH-60S program or bit into what later became the US-101.

The Marines would have had to wait until 2000 for the US-101 as a replacement. That's the year the EH-101 entered service in Europe. As for the MH-60S it did not enter service until 2003. So even if the USMC had gone that route you still would have Marines flying around in CH-46's.

If the V-22 had been successfully killed by Dick Cheney chances are the money would have gone to a US built and designed helicopter. Whether it was a new design or an updated 46 like the 360.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
CTR
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:27 am

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 33):
If the V-22 had been successfully killed by Dick Cheney chances are the money would have gone to a US built and designed helicopter. Whether it was a new design or an updated 46 like the 360.

Based on the gestation time for modern all new US aircraft (F-22: 17 years, AH-64 if it survived: 18 years) It would have to be an H-60 or a warmed over H-46. Otherwise we would still be waiting...

Take care,

CTR
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
 
ruger11
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 4:20 pm

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:45 pm

Quoting CTR (Reply 34):
Based on the gestation time for modern all new US aircraft (F-22: 17 years, AH-64 if it survived: 18 years) It would have to be an H-60 or a warmed over H-46. Otherwise we would still be waiting...

I am pretty sure the Apache Survived....  Smile But I think you were referring to the Commanche... RAH-66 or something along those lines.

It is amazing how long it takes us now a days to go from idea to design, to prototype then development. Sure technology is great, but we have computer design now, too! I mean during WWII how long did it take to develop and design then build the P-38?? And that was a revolutionary aircraft, for it's day, and developed without PC help. Once they fixxed the high speed dive problem it was great.

Quoting LeanOfPeak (Reply 25):
Ruger: Gun synchronizers to shoot through props were developed in WWI. I would like to think we have not lost that capability. Granted, a turret that shoots through several portions in the blade's arc makes the problem more sophisticated, but the tools we have to deal with the problem are more sophisticated as well.

As far as hand controlled door guns go, I'd have to assume that a synchronizer would be nearly impossible. the blades are almost inline with the trajectory of the rounds... but I am talking about door guns being used in helo mode... I think a VERY SIMPLE locking T&E device that has a built in stop so you cant swing the gun over to hit the engine nacelle would be fine, and cost probably less than $300-500 a piece.

As far as a nose turret goes... we had a 40mm chin turret on the UH-1 in Vietnam.



Quote:
M5 Armament Subsystem (1958-1975). The M5 armament subsystem was a flexible, remote controlled, servo-power driven, chin-mounted pod, which held one M75 40mm grenade launcher. The M5 could be mounted on the UH-1B/UH-1C/UH-1M "Huey" and was also used on the ACH-47A "Guns-A-Go-Go ". The M5 carried 150 or 300 rounds of ammunition. Ammunition was fed from a 302 round rotary drum by an ammumition booster, thru a chute, to the grenade launcher. A reflex-type flexible hand control sight mounted above the copilot's seat. A master armament control was accessible to both pilot and copilot. The M5 was type classified Standard A (over 494 units were built).

One last thing is I disagree that the Ch46 and Ch53 do not need refueling capability...

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 30):
Quoting CTR (Reply 29):
Air to air refueling in a V-22 is a joy compared to a CH-53 due to its rotor position and speed. Air to air refuel in a CH-46 or 47? I shudder the thought.

That aircraft/platform has no need for aerial refueling - that's what C-130 and C-17's are for.

The Ch46 and 53 DO need refueling capability... Afghanistan is a prime example of this... In that high altitude they burn a LOT of fuel and they are a long way from our ships. You don't always have a FARP.
 
AirRyan
Topic Author
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:20 am

Quoting Ruger11 (Reply 35):
It is amazing how long it takes us now a days to go from idea to design, to prototype then development. Sure technology is great, but we have computer design now, too! I mean during WWII how long did it take to develop and design then build the P-38?? And that was a revolutionary aircraft, for it's day, and developed without PC help. Once they fixxed the high speed dive problem it was great.

The F-14 went from paper to flight in a little over a year from what I remember reading, and that was back in the late 1960's with no CAD. I think the biggest problem today is not technology so much as it is bereaucracy, money (greed), and politics.

Quoting Ruger11 (Reply 35):
As far as a nose turret goes... we had a 40mm chin turret on the UH-1 in Vietnam.

Currently, that is where the FLIR is suppossed to go - but what you rather have in combat?  Smile

Quoting Ruger11 (Reply 35):
The Ch46 and 53 DO need refueling capability... Afghanistan is a prime example of this... In that high altitude they burn a LOT of fuel and they are a long way from our ships. You don't always have a FARP.

In the vast flat desert confines of Afghan and what not, if you need that much range there is little to no where a C-130 cannot get into. Helicopters by nature aren't designed for high altitude and with their slow speed, I just don't buy that they need to be aerial refuelled when it would be better to just use a C-130 for the mission.
 
ruger11
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 4:20 pm

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:30 am

Well agree to disagree on the refueling issue... I don't think it's a bad Idea to have a probe around... heh you never know when you might need one! That said, if we ever get all the J model hercs we need we'll be just fine on that issue.

About the weapons system... this was brought up a while back on another forum I used to read. It's a sad day when over almost 20 years and a billion+ dollars we can't design a quick, medium to heavy lift capacity helicopter, with a good range and the capability of having weapons, refueling capacity and night low altitude flying ability.

I think this is more an issue of wanting to design the new technology and having nearly unlimited funds to do so.

I like the info on the F-14, and it was a premier fighter for years and years... with the phoenixAIM-54 system it was so capable, too... It's a shame we can't produce on this V-22 mess.

I also think a lack of competition in design really hurts us, too. Back in the day we had what... 6-10 big aircraft design houses and companies?? more maybe? With such amazing (at the time) aircraft like the P-38, the B-58, F-14 and C-5 and many many many more, it's a shame we can't do better than this with ALL technology we have today!! CAD, supercomputers, simulators, etc.

well I'm off my soapbox... least I know why I'm a grunt, Ryan... heh an M-16 is a lot easier to design/ build/ use... and it's a lot cheaper too!! but don't get me started oin the 5.56mm vs XXXX round topic!! haha.

Aight later
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2177
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: Want To Go Into Combat With No Guns? V-22 Osprey..

Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:15 am

Speaking of extraordinarily long gestation periods for aircraft designs... it has always floored me how long it takes to get a design into service these days. I mean, the SR-71 Blackbird (or, more specifically, its A-12 predecessor) went from napkin to flight in 2 1/2 years I think. And that started in 1959, no computers, no CAD, and everything, and I mean e v e r y t h i n g had to be designed from scratch and was revolutionary. They had to invent a fuel with a high flashpoint for it, they had to find oil that wouldn't ignite at those temps, the tires filled with nitrogen and imbedded with silver, etc etc. The fastest plane to ever fly using materials in ways never before done and flying at speeds never before attained, and in less than 3 years it flew and successfully. Similiar things with the F-104, U-2, XB-70 and so on. 20 years after a bomber with 4 radial engines dropped a bomb on Hiroshima we had a 200' long, 500,000lb+ Mach 3+ bomber that flew at 70,000' on its own shockwave. That's what happens when politicians let aviation industry do what they need to do.

And now for a 'revolutionary' successor to the F-15 it takes almost 20 years to get into service?? I know the F-22's strong points, but come on, its not THAT big of a leap in technology. All the computing software and technology we have, and yet a Comanche or Raptor or Osprey takes forever to see service. Just seems ass backwards to me, and it is a problem inherent with regulatory and beaurocratic constrictions that impede what could otherwise be rapid progress.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bearnard123, Wildlander and 20 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos