Comments on: V-22s In Af-Pak: Faster, Higher, Longer

By: phrogdriver

phrogdriver — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:14:36 +0000

It’s still WAY faster than a Cobra, even the Zulu.

By: JCitizen

JCitizen — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:13:56 +0000

Pretty good idea, Skysoldier!

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:30:23 +0000

Hey! why didn’t they get the Contractor’s that Build that DAMN thing to go out on Test flights, since they said it was a good A/C. How many Marines were Kill, cause of it. And if that thing gets shot at and lose a blade lets see how well those pilots are to bring it down. At least a ch47 or ch46,ch34ch53 has a fighting chance. that thing. lets see how it does in a HOT LZ. and will be reading it in the papers, like everything else they say it was a Mech problem not gun fire.

By: JCitizen

JCitizen — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:08:57 +0000

I would think he was surely referring to a mainframe mount, not the engine sponsons.

By: pennst98

pennst98 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:41:52 +0000

George.….yes we can strap weapons on the engines and make it fire through the propellers, assuming that doesn’t break the wings or change the aerodynamics…which it most certainly would. but the way this thing flies the weapons would be inoperable on take off and landing (pointing up into the sky).…and that’s when you need them the most.

By: crewdog 6172

crewdog 6172 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:38:14 +0000

I was out there last year with the v-22. And let me tell you. They did not do as well as the marine corps is saying. I know that for a fact. Ask any of the v-22 crew dogs if they can spin on deck for more than 15 min in the summer without over heating there mix boxes. Or ask them how many missions the ch46e had to pick up for the due to lack of up a/c… oh and by the way they keep saying the phrog can’t due what it does. Why were the first ones in and the last ones coming out of Iraq cause were are dependable unlike the v-22 so semper fi

By: George

George — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:33:05 +0000

Gee, and I thought we had a method of shooting through the propeller arc during WW I!

By: SkysoldierRecon

SkysoldierRecon — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:03:10 +0000

Maybe we can build an attack version of the Osprey..? Nah, hopefully some Marine will do wat was said above..IMPROVISE. Those Chinooks are just big targets, so many have gone down. watever happend to the COIN plane? Air-cover..man you can’t beat it..

By: VancBob

VancBob — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:52:09 +0000

They say it isn’t a helo. Will they still say that after one gets shot down while landing in the helo configuration? And what’s up with designing it to the maximum limits with no guns? No room for upgrades?

Maybe they can screw on steel plates to the backs of the rotors for firing an unsynchronized gun through the arc of the blades. Worked in WW1. We it sort of worked.

Why do they build something like this? Or the new F-35B? What have they got against Marine Air? Give them new upgraded Ch-53’s and the A-10’s the AF doesn’t deserve and get out of their way.

By: Capt America

Capt America — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:23:27 +0000

The Marines commissioned a confidential report by an independent group to access Marine ops in Afghanistan in 2002 at its “Camp Rhino.” Generals expected the report to rave about the V-22 potential, but the study concluded the CH-46E provided better support than V-22s could. Why? All the fuel in Afghanistan was flown in by KC-130s.

The V-22 is twice the size of a CH-46E with six times the installed horsepower and burns three times more fuel per mile, but doesn’t carry any more payload. If one looks at the actual performance data (rather than advertised V-22 specs) The V-22s cabin is 25% smaller while its small proprotors can’t lift more than the CH-46Es. (The Phrogs are now restricted to less than half payload due to airframe fatigue)

As for the post who claims the CH-47F is a heavyweight class lifter while the V-22 is a medium class, what’s the point of that spin. The V-22 is 50% larger than the CH-47F (empty weight) yet can lift only half as much! The V-22 is a heavy weight size aircraft with poor medium lift performance, about the same as an CH-60L.

By: Daniel Russ

Daniel Russ — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:13:04 +0000

I don’t think it’s a matter of firing through the propellers. They could install a gun on the plane somewhere and slave it to the pilot. The problem is still weight. Consider that 2000 rounds of 7.62mm ammo in boxes weighs about 350 pounds. Which equals about two troopers. 2000 rounds would be minimum what the Osprey could carry but that doesn’t count the gun itself or the carriage mechanism.

Respectfully,

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com

By: daveLSD34

daveLSD34 — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:38:49 +0000

Riceball: If they/us could do it in 1918 then we can do it now. Arming V-22’s would completely screw up the beauracratic (sp) bs that evolves from the introduction of new/cutting edge technology for our troops. Some hack Senator or Congressman or Lobbyist would not get his/her ego stroked becuz they did not think outside the box when this V-22 program stood up. B-52 bombers have been around and effective for 50+ years, the Cobra is still flying CAS missions, but who knew in the 80’s that we would need the Osprey to pick up and deliver hell from above to the Taliban/Al Queda. Just do what is needed to assist the grunts on the ground to get the job done. Want the job done right, gotta have the right tools. Tim the Tool Man Taylor and Al Borlund could modify a V-22 to get it right. Let us, the USA move thru this and get the job done.

By: Riceball

Riceball — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:24:24 +0000

The whole issue of being able to fire through the prop/rotor arc of the Ospreys is kind of funny when you consider that way back during WW I they managed to figure out how to succefully shoot a machine gun through the props of a plane and the tech level was a lot lower back then. I wonder if you could create some kind of interrupt system that would allow for the firing or rockets through the Osprey’s props or are rockets too slow fire through without hitting?

By: Daniel Russ

Daniel Russ — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:02:29 +0000

No, I have no gauge on the performance of the Zulu Cobra, but if you add altitude in the equation, the Zulu Cobra probably would not be able to provide escort even if it was as fast as an Osprey.

Respectfully,

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com

By: Guest

Guest — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:41:33 +0000

“And it’s too fast to be escorted by gunships.”

Obviously you have no gouge on the performance of the Zulu model Cobra.

By: Guest

Guest — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:37:30 +0000

Apples and oranges payload comparison. The Foxtrot Chinook is a heavy lift platform. The Osprey is a medium lift platform.

By: John S

John S — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:08:27 +0000

More’s the pitty that the MV-22 was procured to replace the CH-46 Sea Knight, not the CH-47 Chinook.

By: Daniel Russ

Daniel Russ — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:52:56 +0000

I actually created ads for the V-22 program in the mid 80s working for a Richmond ad agency that handled the Allison Gas Turbine Division of GM. That was one of my accounts. The continuing issue with the V-22 is one of weight. The more guns you put on, the fewer troops, less distance etcetera. So if you upgunned it enough you would lose some of the advantages ( operational range and payload).

And it’s too fast to be escorted by gunships.

That said, despite twenty five years of critics, it has risen from the dead more often than a Zombie in a George Romero flick. And it sure has done fairly well and is fairly liked by its users.

Respectfully,

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com

By: daTRUTH

daTRUTH — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:29:52 +0000

Wow.... The anti-Osprey pundits are still prolific! Let's keep in mind that this isn't a helicopter nor an airplane. it's a Tiltrotor, ment to be flown and used like a TILTROTOR The Osprey has more than 150% range increase on the next size helicopter. Moreover, if they are CV's then it's about 170%. It has carried HMMWV at 160 KTS. And no, a Blackhawk, -47, nor a -53 can or had does that! The comments from the troops and the users should continue to reinforce any of the FACTS that the Osprey is a valuable tool and continues to OUTPERFORM most other rotorcraft in it's class. I does have some limitations, HOGE is one. But, it is sure no White Elephant, a "jobs" program, or a disaster. It's very very funny to ready the ignorant people who post on these Blogs. Most have no understanding of basic metrology, aircraft performance, or operational need of the US Military.

By: daveLSD34

daveLSD34 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:21:52 +0000

joe, could not agree more. Marines adapt, overcome and improvise. Ugly with some short and long distant whupp ass, better than pretty and defenseless. Air Force A-10’s are very ugly but effective, kinda like my prom date back in the day.